Federal Legislation 2/2006

November 1, 2006

Position Paper from Sweatfree Communities Concerning S.3485 and H.R. 5635- The Decent Working Conditions and Fair Competition Act

Background: Founded in 2003, SweatFree Communities supports and coordinates a national network of grassroots campaigns that work with school districts, cities, states, and other institutional purchasers to adopt “sweatfree” purchasing policies which will stop tax dollars from subsidizing sweatshops and abusive child labor. SweatFree Communities has created a structure to facilitate the sharing of resources and information between local campaigns and built a national sweatfree movement with the political strength to generate significant market demand for products that are made in humane conditions by workers who earn living wages. This movement helps sweatshop workers globally in their struggles to improve working conditions and form strong, independent unions.

As a network of diverse and innovative anti-sweatshop organizations, SweatFree Communities is qualified to play an active role in the development and adoption of Federal anti-sweatshop legislation. In the past five years our grassroots partners throughout the United States have led successful campaigns in 16 states to enact sweatfree purchasing legislation by 36 city governments, 13 county governments, five state governments, and 117 public school districts. Our partner, United Students Against Sweatshops, is leading the sweatfree campaign on over 150 public and private university and college campuses. SweatFree Communities maintains an updated sweatfree procurement model policy based on best practices in localities throughout the country. United Students Against Sweatshops has developed sweatfree licensing standards that may also be helpful for federal anti-sweatshop initiatives.

Proposal: Sweatfree Communities applauds the efforts of Senator Dorgan and co-sponsors Senators Byrd, Rockefeller and Reid as well as Representative Brown and 24 House co-sponsors to introduce legislation in Congress to aid workers internationally by banning trade in sweatshop goods. Since such legislation will need to be reintroduced in 2007 for consideration by the 110th Congress, we propose that a meeting take place in Washington, DC in early December 2006 with Congressional staff, grassroots anti-sweatshop activists, religious groups and unions, including unions and worker advocacy organizations from other nations involved in manufacturing goods that are exported to the United States, to explore new legislation. We are able to organize such a meeting.

Analysis for Further Discussion: With the considerable legislative experience of our local and state sweatfree campaign partners, SweatFree Communities suggests that when drafting legislation for the new Congress that the following issues be further analyzed for possible legislative drafting improvements:

1. Coverage and Enforcement: The current legislation proposes a total ban on the import, export, advertisement, transport, distribution, sale, and government procurement of any goods made with sweatshop labor. Most of our local and state legislative sweatfree initiatives have concentrated on government procurement and on apparel and textiles. New York law includes sports equipment. A few cities have enacted sweatfree ordinances that apply to all their purchases, but expand the scope incrementally beginning with apparel. Would an incremental approach be easier to enforce on the federal level as well, perhaps beginning with several items and then gradually expanding the list of goods? Would the Federal Trade Commission need additional resources for effective monitoring and enforcement?

2. Standards and Compliance: The current bill is based on the International Labor Organization “core labor standards.” However many localities nationally have already adopted stronger labor standards for sweatfree apparel purchasing. Federal legislation should incorporate the highest possible labor standards, and should not preempt local and state laws if they set a higher standard for compliance. One example is the living wage standard vs. the legal minimum wage. Remediation procedures should be incorporated so that companies are responsible for rectifying worker rights violations.

3. Eligible Parties for Legal Standing: The current legislation proposes allowing competitors and investors to file civil actions. Unions and employees of both manufacturers and subcontractors should also be allowed to file civil actions since they would have the closest knowledge of infractions. Such legal authority could aid in their efforts to preserve jobs while improving the workplace. There should be provisions in the legislation for notice to employees by employers of their ability to initiate such civil actions comparable to notice requirements concerning minimum wage and EEO laws.

4. Disclosure: Complete disclosure of the names and addresses of contractors and subcontractors as well as their wage rates should be included. Most city, school district and state laws have provisions for such comprehensive disclosure, an indispensable tool for enforcement of sweatfree procurement laws, and an important measure for workers seeking to enhance their working conditions. Without exact location information, it is impossible to verify violations or compliance with the law.

5. Fair pricing: Many analysts now recognize that enforcement of strong labor standards through monitoring and investigations of factories does not work if those factories do not operate in conditions that allow compliance with such labor standards. The contract and purchasing terms between buyer and producer help to define those conditions by establishing pricing and requirements for production volume and turnaround time. When factories are paid rock-bottom prices for their goods, they can only survive by exploiting workers. Federal law should recognize that fair pricing is necessary for fair labor standard compliance.