 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
CLR and partners question integrity of "independent certification" by WRAPPosted June 26, 2003 This letter from the CLR and its partners to Worldwide Responsible Apparel Production (WRAP) questions the legitimacy of their "independent certification" and the structure of the WRAP system. ---- Lawrence M. Doherty March 7, 2003 Dear Mr. Doherty, We are contacting you with regard to the ongoing labor dispute at the Gina Form Bra Company, a WRAP-certified facility in Thailand, and other issues of concern in relation to the WRAP system. Serious labor rights violations have been reported at the Gina Form facility for more than one and a half years. More than one year ago the union at this garment factory, the Gina Relation Labour Union, filed a complaint with the Thai National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) with regard to these various charges, resulting in a ruling in the union's favor in Sept. 2002. The Clean Clothes Campaign (CCC) was informed that the union contacted WRAP in late December 2002 regarding the ongoing problems at the facility and management's refusal to implement the NHRC ruling and has yet to receive a response (other than confirmation of receipt). The union was told that a response would be forthcoming after January 2nd. It is clear from your lack of action to date that in fact, the WRAP program has no serious intention of responding to labor rights violations which not only constitute a violation of the stated WRAP principles, but also a violation of Thai labor law. As representatives of organizations dedicated to promoting labor rights worldwide, we believe your inaction calls into question WRAP's committment to the standards it purports to uphold. Moreover it is evident that WRAP's system to process and follow up on complaints of violations of its standards at WRAP-certified factilities is inadequate. We believe that a complaint mechanism, accessible to workers, unions, and NGOs, is a crucial part to any system that attempts to monitor or verify compliance with a code of workplace labor standards. Without the capacity to facilitate such access for workers, neither the WRAP system itself, nor its participating retail companies, should be claiming that their supplier facilities are free of labor rights violations. We would also like to take this opportunity to raise other concerns regarding the WRAP Principles, monitoring system, and the organizationalstructure of the system. With regard to the WRAP Principles, we find notable shortcomings in the standards outlined. The Principles do not make reference to International Labour Organization conventions. Vague language or clearly lower standards have been used in the WRAP Principles, resulting in a weak code that is open to a variety of interpretations. Standards that fall short in our view include WRAP's principles on freedom of association, child labor and wages. The right to associate, the basis for full enjoyment of all other rights, is imperfectly protected under the WRAP definitions, which do not conform with ILO jurisprudence on this subject. Regarding child labor the minimum age is listed as 14 years in the WRAP Principles, not the ILO's minimum age of 15 (with exception for countries that meet its developing country criteria). Wages are set at the local minimum, not a living wage. In relation to discrimination, the WRAP standard does not specify common forms of discrimination such as gender, race, sexual orientation, disability, national origin, age, and marital status. Without elaborating on the scope of this provision, the WRAP standard does little to address the well-documented types of discrimination garment workers experience. With regard to hours, only "one day off in seven" is mentioned, not the ILO's standard of a maximum work week of 48 hours, plus 12 hours overtime. Given the pervasive (forced) overtime problem in the garment and sports shoe industries, we find this a serious omission. Also troubling is that workers' one day off is made contingent upon meeting "urgent business needs." Such an exception is clearly unacceptable. In our view, the provisions in the WRAP Principles relating to transshipment and drug interdiction are inappropriate and have no place in a labor code of conduct. We also have fundamental concerns about the structure of the WRAP system. At all levels, the system lacks the organizational representation of trade unions and relevant NGOs. Without worker access to the WRAP system, through the presence of those bodies that represent their concerns or advocate for the respect of labor rights, the system is without credibility. We question the lack of a multi-stakeholder supervisory board (WRAP's "Independent Certification Board" includes industry representatives and individuals, but again, it lacks the organizational representation of trade unions and labor NGOs). The WRAP system places total responsibility for compliance with labor standards with suppliers. Such a system does little to address the structural inequalities that create many of the problems most common in garment factories. Without placing the policies and practices of sourcing companies (those brand name companies and retailers that contract with suppliers to produce their goods) within the scope of your system, the links between pricing and low wages and forced overtime and delivery times for example, will not be addressed. A system that does not recognize the role of sourcing companies in shaping working conditions at all levels of their supply chains is one that is fundamentally flawed. In addition to the Gina Form case, we have received reports of serious violations of internationally-recognized labor rights at other WRAP-certified facilities. We question therefore the quality of the "independent monitoring" service which WRAP provides. There has been a lack of transparency regarding WRAP's monitoring methods (ex. are workers interviewed? how are such interviews conducted?). As far as we can determine from the limited information available, WRAP monitoring is far from independent. The company that is to be monitored selects and hires its own monitoring organization, establishing a business relationship that makes questionable the veracity of the monitor's findings. The monitoring organizations participating in the WRAP system are largely commercial audit firms. The failure of commercial auditors to provide quality audits has been extensively documented. We have raised a number of significant concerns that point to far-reaching changes that we believe WRAP must undertake. In the absence of significant steps by WRAP to effectuate these changes, we will continue our investigations and publicly campaign on WRAP, informing our partners, member-organizations and consumers that companies and brands relying on WRAP certification are in fact making no progress in ensuring that internationally recognized labor standards are respected. If in fact you intend to make the reforms necessary to evolve into a credible monitoring program, the first step should be an effective response in the Gina Form case. We call upon you to immediately notify the Gina Form Relations Union of the status of your investigation or any plans for action in this matter. We look forward to hearing about your follow up in relation to the Gina Form case and the issues we have outlined here regarding the WRAP Principles, monitoring system, and structure. Sincerely, Ineke Zeldenrust, Coordinator On behalf of: International Labor Rights Fund- Bama Athreya, Deputy Director Union of Needletrades, Industrial and Textile Employees (UNITE), Ginny Coughlin, International Affairs Director Campaign for Labor Rights- Severina Rivera, Executive Director Global Exchange- Jason Mark, Corporate Accountability Programs |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
