Codes of Conduct in the Apparel Industry

Labor practices in the apparel industry are quite different from those of the footwear industry. The capital required to set up an apparel manufacturing unit is lower than the footwear industry. Therefore, apparel is mostly produced in small and medium sized businesses and in sweatshops. There are few skills or materials required. Generally, the apparel manufacturers produce for many different brand-names and therefore the incentive to follow codes of conduct is very limited. Since apparel manufacturers have been operating in Thailand longer than the footwear industry, many manufacturers, including Par Garment, Eden Group, and Lian Thai, for example, have workers' unions.

Apparel manufacturers dislike unions. The Austrian-owned Eden Group, for example, where a union had organized in the late 1980s, closed down operations in September 1996 without paying any compensation to its 700 workers. The Eden Group continues to sell subcontracted products to transnational corporations, including Walt Disney and Warner Bros. Workers' legal suits against the owner are still pending. The Par Garment company has also suppressed union activities. Par Garment produces for nearly 20 brand-name products, including Nike and Adidas sportswear, and has violated many labor rights. For example, the company fired union members without paying compensation, subcontracting production to sweatshops where workers are not protected by law.

Enforcement of codes of conduct in the apparel industry is very weak and performed only on a voluntary basis. Thus, few apparel producers follow codes of conduct. Although the number of dangerous chemicals used in the apparel sector is low, the sector is one of the worst violators of workers' rights. In apparel factories, workers are often expected to work more than 60 hours per week. Reebok human rights teams know that the apparel manufacturers violate their codes of conduct, but they choose not to act because the companies in the apparel sector do not need the Reebok orders, as they have many other companies willing to purchase from them. Instead of canceling their orders and finding another manufacturer, the apparel corporations ignore the problem.

The contrast between labor conditions in the footwear and the apparel sectors suggests that a reliable relationship between transnational companies and subcontracted producers is prerequisite to the effective implementation of corporate codes of conduct. The experience of workers at Wongpaitoon, however, demonstrated that management at transnational corporations must also be attentive to the labor policies of their producers and subcontractors. It is unacceptable for transnational corporations to claim that they are not responsible for the practices of their so-called venders. Transnational corporations which do not wish to take responsibility for their producers' labor practices should not advertise that they have corporate codes of conduct.

Labor practices within the Lian Thai company help to illustrate the conditions within the apparel sector. Lian Thai employs approximately 700 hundred workers and subcontracts their orders to more than 40 sweatshops in the Bangkok area and in Burirum and Ubon Ratchathani, in the Northeast. Often the quality of the products produced by these small subcontractors is so poor that the products must be repaired in the main factories. Workers from Lian Thai, which produce sportswear for Nike, Reebok and Adidas, claim that they have been working at least 4 to 6 hours of overtime every day for the past year and on most Sundays. If orders are high, they work until morning. Every week many workers suffer serious cuts and injuries to their hands, including broken bones, from industrial sewing machines. [1]

It is the usual practice of Lian Thai to fire workers before the completion of the four-month probation period. Just before this period is completed, the workers are dismissed and asked to re-apply for their job if they would like to continue their employment. Lian Thai can then avoid being held responsible for workers, such as the payment of medical insurance, under Thai labor law.

The union at Lian Thai no longer has any power to negotiate with management. Workers with less than one year of work experience at Lain Thai who applied for union membership were dismissed. The union now has to avoid accepting membership applications from workers with less than one year's experience.

Footnotes:

1. Lian Thai union members, interview, 28 December 1998.

Top