FRAMING AND CLARIFYING THE
ISSUES:
INTERIM REPORT OF THE
SENATE
WRC REVIEW COMMITTEE
Jeff Hurwit
Ann Tedards
James Earl, Ex-officio
SUBMITTED
TO THE UNIVERSITY SENATE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
UNIVERSITY
OF OREGON
18
SEPTEMBER 2000
Table
of Contents
I. Senate
Review Committee: Membership and Charge 3
II. Summary
and Recommendation 4
III. Framing
the Controversy: Due Diligence 6
IV Clarification
of Issues Surrounding the University’s
Membership
in the WRC 6
V. From
Issue Clarification to Action:
Four Recommendations 15
Appendix One: University of Oregon Trademark
Licensee
Code of Conduct 18
Appendix Two: President Dave Frohnmayer to
Nils
Hasselmo, 25 July 2000 22
On May 24, 2000, Senate President James
Earl wrote to the members of the University Senate that during the next
academic year,
the
Senate Executive Committee will serve as the Senate’s
oversight committee concerned with our membership in the Worker Rights
Consortium.
To assist the Executive Committee with that task, I am
creating a subcommittee to review the issue during the coming year. This
committee will make its reports and recommendations to the Executive
Committee; these will be forwarded to the Senate for debate; and the
Senate’s recommendation will be forwarded to the President.
This new committee will consist of two former Senate presidents, Ann
Tedards and Jeff Hurwit, and this year’s chair of the Faculty Advisory
Committee, David Frank. These three distinguished elected faculty leaders
have graciously volunteered to devote themselves to this important job, for
which I thank them sincerely in advance. I will also serve on this
committee ex officio.
President Earl
gave the subcommittee the following charge:
To
bring clarity to the many issues surrounding the University’s membership in the
WRC. The committee will listen to the many voices in this complex public
debate, including students, faculty, administration, trustees, alumni,
licensees,
donors, and others. The President has offered office support to help the
committee seek out the relevant facts and points of view. The committee will
provide regular interim reports. Other than that, I am leaving the committee’s
procedures and goals to its own discretion.
This
is our first interim report. We have sought out and listened to the many
opinions voiced on this complex set of issues.
We wish to stress that the Review Committee is not charged with
determining whether the decision to join the WRC, as opposed to the FLA or any
other monitoring group, was the best decision possible, nor is it charged to
decide about the continuation of membership in the WRC. Rather, the Review Committee’s reports will
be used by the Senate Executive Committee to inform the Senate discussion regarding
the question of the continuation of the University’s membership in the WRC
beyond its initial year of commitment.
In
this report, we frame and clarify seven issues raised by the decision of the UO
to join the WRC and offer recommendations to the Senate that are the result of
our study. In our consideration of
these issues, we have sought out the relevant questions, facts, and points of
view. This report includes the following
three sections:
·
Framing the
Controversy: Due Diligence, the University’s Mission and the Trademark
Licensee Code of Conduct
The
University bears the responsibility of due diligence; those who make key
decisions must engage in reasonable investigations of the facts and
opinions. To achieve due diligence on the
issues surrounding the WRC, those who discuss and debate the WRC controversy
must be well informed. The issues
raised by the WRC controversy should be framed by the mission of the University
and by the values displayed in the Trademark Licensee Code of Conduct.
·
Clarification
of the Issues
We
identify seven issues, out of the many raised by the WRC controversy, for close
attention. In so doing, we derive from
each a question that we seek to answer.
1.
History. What set of
factors produced the WRC issue and was due diligence paid?
2.
Mission. Did the decision to join the WRC conflict with the
mission of the UO?
3. Procedure. Was the decision to join
the WRC reached in accordance with established University procedures?
4. Responsibility. What obligations does
the University have to its “stakeholders?”
5. Globalization. What are the implications of globalization
for the University, especially with regard to its Trademark Licensee Code of
Conduct?
6. Standards. What criteria should the Senate use in creating a monitoring
system designed to assure compliance with the University’s code of conduct?
7. Precedent. What
precedent has been set by the decision to join the WRC, and what are the
implications for future decisions?
·
Recommendations
1. We recommend the expansion of this Review
Committee into the Senate Ad hoc Committee on Trademark Licensees and
Monitoring. Membership would include
administrators, faculty, and students, and the committee’s charge would be to
continue the work of this Review Committee, including the coordination of all
campus discussion of the issue, and to report to the Senate Executive Committee
on a regular basis.
2. The University policy should seek
compliance with its Trademark Licensing Code of Conduct.
3. The University should align itself with
creditable and viable governmental, non-governmental, human rights, industry
and labor organizations to assure compliance.
4. Consistent with the University’s
research, teaching, and service mission, the institution should continue to
encourage study of the issues raised by labor practices in a global society.
The University bears the duty of due
diligence in securing the interests of the University’s faculty, students, and
friends. This duty obliges those in decision-making capacities to make
reasonable investigations before they make judgments. To achieve due diligence, those who engage in discussions and
debate on the WRC controversy must be well informed. Accordingly, the University administration and Senate must make
good judgments through research. Our objective is to clarify the issues
surrounding the WRC controversy and our method is to seek out the best research
on these issues. In addition, the University must provide University citizens
and friends with an opportunity to express an informed opinion on these
issues.
President Frohnmayer writes “it is
critically important for research universities to keep the high ground on
issues which are of global importance in the globalization debate. This point
is true, especially, of questions, which may be posed quite concretely and to
which answers, and sometimes data presently are lacking” (Appendix One). We
agree. We conclude that the high ground
on these issues constitutes adherence to the mission of the University and
compliance with the Trademark Licensee Code of Conduct. As we clarify the issues surrounding the
WRC, these two touchstones guide our judgments.
IV. Clarification of Seven Issues
Surrounding the University’s
Membership in the WRC
In what follows, we attempt to clarify
seven issues concerning history, mission, procedure, responsibility,
globalization, standards, and precedent.
1.
HISTORY. What set of factors produced
the WRC issue and was due diligence paid?
The University receives approximately $300,000 in annual licensing fees, and contracts with approximately 186 licensees and sub-licensees. The amount of money raised through licensing fees is thus relatively small, and the health of the University or its athletic department does not depend upon it. At the same time, the University’s decision to join the WRC and the choice made by Phil Knight to withhold future donations to his alma mater catapulted the University of Oregon into the middle of an increasingly public globalization debate.
Discussions
relating to the issue of the licensing of companies manufacturing items bearing
the University of Oregon logo began in earnest over a year before the official
vote of the University Senate to recommend to President Frohnmayer that the U
of O join the WRC. The President began such discussions informally
with his Faculty Advisory Council in the spring of 1999, and in the fall of
1999 he formally appointed a special committee (consisting of six students,
three professors, the dean of students, the president of the alumni
association, and Vice President Duncan McDonald) to advise him on issues of
labor codes and licensing. On March 1, a referendum to join the WRC was
included in the annual student election process. The students supported the referendum by a vote of 3:1, though
turnout for the election was very low. On March 16, the special committee on
labor codes and licensing unanimously voted in favor of conditionally joining
the WRC for a period of one year, and on April 4 student protesters began to
occupy the grounds of Johnson Hall to urge the President to join the WRC and
also to urge a greater student role in campus governance. On April 12, the
University Senate voted to endorse the recommendation of the special licensing
committee, and President Frohnmayer immediately agreed, fulfilling his
commitment (made at the end of March) to follow the advice of the Senate. Soon
after, Phil Knight announced that he would no longer provide the University
with financial assistance.
Was
due diligence displayed by the University in its response to the WRC issue? Our
purpose is not to dwell on the past, nor to assign blame. Rather, we intend to help frame and reframe
the debate that will ensue this year as well as to derive from our experience
some insights on how the University should respond to similar issues in the
future. Reframing the debate does not absolve the University of its
responsibility to exercise due diligence.
Based on our inquiry, we have found
·
President
Frohnmayer legitimately exercised his executive authority in joining the
WRC. As we note below, the University
Senate has legislative authority on two matters: the curriculum and codes of
student conduct. Votes taken by the Senate on all other issues are purely
advisory, and the final decisions on such issues are those of the University
President alone. Our conclusion is that the vast majority of faculty was
neutral on or not engaged by the WRC issue in March and April 2000. The discussions in the Faculty Advisory
Council (an elected committee of faculty members who advise the President and
his staff), the Trademark Licensee Code of Conduct Committee (a committee with
three faculty members), and in the University Senate Meeting of April 4, did
not include faculty condemnations of any multinational corporations,
celebration or rehearsal of any ideological critique, or calls for
isolationism.
·
The focus of
the Licensing Code of Conduct Committee was on the development of a Trademark
Licensee Code of Conduct; the choice of the WRC as a monitoring
organization was given less attention.
·
In
exercising due diligence, the University should learn from the WRC issue that
its administration, faculty, and friends need to gain a strong command of the
numerous issues raised by labor in the global economy. Without doubt, the University has also been
reminded of the need to maintain an open dialogue among its friends, students,
administration, faculty and staff. In
particular, the University and its supporters need to be in timely and
appropriate dialogue about intentions and goals.
2.
MISSION. Did the decision to
join the WRC conflict with the mission of
the University of Oregon?
The essential mission of the University
of Oregon is educational: its purpose is, through research and
teaching, to discover and create knowledge, and to transfer that knowledge
to the generations of students who pass through its doors. But the mission
consists of more than simply teaching grammar, mathematical theorems, or
computer skills. It is also to prepare students to live in a rapidly changing
society—a society that, for better or worse, is increasingly diverse and
global. According to the mission statement of the University of Oregon itself,
one goal of the University is to accept “the challenge of an evolving social,
political, and technological environment by inviting and guiding change rather
than reacting to it.”
Such a challenge—and such a commitment to effecting positive
social and political change—is inherently controversial. On any given issue, reasonable people may
disagree as to what social or political policy is in fact advisable,
practical, beneficial, or moral, or whether any given decision or policy
unduly “politicizes” the University, or whether such a decision or policy
violates Oregon Administrative Rules governing public activities (such as OAR
580-022-0010.2, stating that “No employee shall take action that might be
construed as committing the institution or the Board to a position on public
issues”).
The ostensible purpose of the Workers
Rights Consortium (WRC) is to monitor and influence the behavior of
corporations whose activities, in this new era of “globalization,” extend
beyond national borders, and to secure the human rights and improve the
economic conditions of workers in a number of foreign countries.
Some may characterize the University’s decision to join WRC as primarily
humanitarian, and so “beyond politics.” For others, the decision was inherently
political and divisive. If so, it needs also to be said that a decision
to join the Fair Labor Association (FLA), or a decision to join no monitoring
group at all, would have been just as political as the decision that was made.
As a public institution supported in part
through taxes, the University of Oregon has limits placed upon its political
role. Though individual faculty and students, or groups of faculty and
students, are free to express their points of view both in the classroom
(when such views are relevant to topics under discussion) and out of it,
and thus rightly enjoy “academic freedom” (see OAR 580-022-0005), and while
individual employees of the Oregon University System are free to act
politically so long as their actions do not interfere with their duties or have
a chilling effect upon the educational environment (see OAR 580-022-0010.1),
such freedom appears not to apply to the institution itself. Thus, for example,
unlike individual students and employees, the University itself cannot
and should not endorse candidates for office. This is, of course,
appropriate, since the University community is not a monolith, and the
students, faculty, and employees who comprise that community represent a
variety of different viewpoints. It is also noteworthy that the
University itself took no official position on some of the most critical
and divisive political issues of our recent history, such as the war in
Vietnam or the policy of apartheid in South Africa or abortion rights, though
its students and faculty freely and commonly spoke out on those matters.
At the same time, it would be naïve to
conclude that the University exists, or should exist, in a social vacuum: there
is no ivory tower on this campus. Many decisions made by the University
can be and have been considered political. Such decisions include but are not
limited to the adoption of policies encouraging diversity across campus
or respecting the sexual orientation of all members of the University
Community, or the decision not to establish a dormitory expressly for gay
and lesbian students, or the decision to join the city of Eugene in creating
the Riverfront Research Park, or the decision to maintain the presence of the
ROTC on campus, or the establishment of the Environmental Law Clinic, or the
acceptance of federal Defense Department funds to support scientific research,
or, for that matter, the decision to invite such visible proponents of human
rights as Corizon Aquino or Marian Wright Edelman as commencement speakers (and
so favorably associate the University with their causes and points of
view). Some of these decisions may be regarded by some observers as
“liberal,” others as “conservative.” It is, to be sure, human nature
to characterize those positions with which one disagrees as “political”
and those with which one agrees as non-controversial, non-partisan, or
humanitarian. But by any fair standard, the University’s political record
is a variegated and complicated one; its policies have not been
doctrinaire or one-sided; and so the University cannot easily or fairly
be characterized as either “liberal” or “conservative.” The University is, and
should always be, a place of many points of view and contradictions. It is a
center of intellectual friction that produces light as well as heat, and one of
its responsibilities is to provide fora where a variety of opinions, popular
and unpopular, can be openly expressed and the free interchange of ideas
protected.
Another, often unstated but nonetheless
clear, responsibility of the University is to preserve and enhance itself
both academically and financially, precisely so that it can continue to fulfill
its primary missions—above all to provide arenas for intellectual debate and to
improve its acquisition and delivery of knowledge. It is this drive for
academic and financial improvement in the face of declining state support over
the past decade that has significantly increased the University’s dependence
upon the donations of alumni and other friends of the institution. And this
very phenomenon—the University’s new and evolving relationships with patrons
and donors—has itself been characterized as political by a number of observers.
Ideally, solutions to the special
problems of human, political, and economic rights related to the rise of
globalization—those problems to be addressed by the WRC, FLA, and other
monitoring organizations—should be offered by the governments in whose countries
the relevant factories operate, through appropriate legislation and
enforcement. Ideally, needed social change should come from within, not imposed
from without.
It is, however, the opinion of this
committee that the University of Oregon has the clear right to
monitor those companies that manufacture articles bearing its logo—its
“signature,” the sign of its identity—in accordance with its own Trademark
Licensing Code of Conduct. It is the opinion of this committee that the
University of Oregon has the right to join any or all such groups that will aid
it in this task. The decision to join
the WRC did not violate either the letter of the mission statement of the
University of Oregon or the spirit of its stated commitment to accept “the
challenge of an evolving social, political, and technological environment by
inviting and guiding change rather than reacting to it”.
3. GOVERNANCE. Was the decision to join
the WRC reached in accordance with established University procedures?
As noted above, it is important to point
out that according to the charter of the University of Oregon, the University
Senate, the principal elective body on campus, consisting of faculty, students,
and officers of administration, actually has legislative authority over only
two matters: the curriculum and codes of student conduct. Votes taken by the
Senate on all other issues are purely advisory, and the final decisions on such
issues are those of the University President alone.
As will be clear from the outline of the
history of the WRC controversy presented above, a variety of viewpoints were
expressed and heard, in a number of different arenas (from committee meetings
to student protests), from late 1999 through spring, 2000. It is the opinion of
this committee that by following the advice of both the special committee he
himself appointed and the elected members of the University Senate, President
Frohnmayer displayed an openness to the concerns and opinions of students,
faculty, and staff members alike.
Again, it is not the charge of this committee to determine
whether President Frohnmayer’s decision to sign on to the WRC was the best
possible judgment, no matter how broad or narrow the support for that decision
may have been among students, faculty, and staff. It is, however, our
conclusion that his decision was reached in accordance with the normal
governance procedures of the University and with respect for the variety of
points of view that had been expressed for more than a year.
4.
RESPONSIBILITY. What obligations
does the University have to its “stakeholders?”
This question has become a mantra in the
licensee monitoring debate since Phil Knight withdrew his support from the
University because it joined the WRC. It seems obvious to many people
that the University should take into consideration the opinions of its
financial supporters when making decisions that may affect them and their
continued support. Obvious as it may seem, however, this question has not
arisen in the past, and there is no obvious answer to it.
The concept of “stakeholders” in the
University is in fact relatively new. The term is being used to refer to
constituencies in the larger university community, mostly alumni and
donors. “Stakeholders” would seem to imply that those who support the
University financially enjoy the right to participate to some degree in its governance, or that a gift
establishes a quid pro quo. Though that may seem obvious to some, the concept is
actually and properly quite foreign to the tradition of the American public
university. Elsewhere in recent years large potential donors have expected
their universities to alter curricula to suit their philosophies of education
and have been rebuffed.
At the University of Oregon governance
rests by law with the President and the faculty. Charitable contributions
to the University are greatly appreciated, especially in these times of
financial difficulty, but have never in the past implied “responsibilities” on
the part of the University to the donors. It is understandable and
laudable that alumni and donors want to improve and shape the university they
so generously support, but there is no traditional mechanism for their
exercising direct influence, at least regarding policy or decision-making.
It can only be regretted if the
University makes a decision that offends some of its friends and
supporters. Since gratitude is the only reward the University can give
for donors’ generosity, it would be terrible to appear ungrateful. Alumni
and donors should lobby the University vigorously and continuously with their
best ideas and opinions, but the University in its outreach should seek a term
other than “stakeholders” for those who have less than a formal legal role in
the University’s decision-making processes.
5.
GLOBALIZATION. What are the
implications of globalization for the University, especially with regard to our
Trademark Licensee Code of Conduct?
Why now? Universities have
displayed their respective logos on apparel for decades. The current
controversy over labor conditions in off-shore factories results from a planet
grown smaller through telecommunications and globalization, especially within
the corporate and financial world. It is imperative that the UO recognize
its place within this larger context. Individuals and, by extension,
institutions do not exist as islands, and in today’s world traditional national
and geographical limits are obscured, if not soon to become invisible.
In addition to practical considerations that arise from global navigation, both real and virtual, ethical issues must also be identified and addressed. To do so in a multi-cultural world requires broad and sensitive lenses. It is incumbent upon any excellent university not only to determine its standards, but also to ensure that its standards are ethical. The question of labor conditions in off-shore factories which make apparel carrying the UO logo is an appropriate one to consider, but is complicated by cultural differences that must be well understood.
The tide of increasing globalization
raises major issues of human relations, cultural differences, workers’
conditions and rights, and the blurring of national borders and identities, to
name only a few. The University of Oregon, as a comprehensive research
university, is the ideal type of institution to take the lead on these issues
of local as well as global importance. We should make every effort to
learn and teach about the emerging issues surrounding globalization.
Through symposia, workshops and student internships, we can educate ourselves
and the larger community about the issues and therefore provide a common
reservoir of knowledge for understanding the changing world and necessary decisions
that must be made in the future.
Readings of public comments regarding the UO’s decision to join the WRC
generally reveal only a cursory understanding of the salient issues at best,
and a disinterest in them at worst. There is understandably much concern
over the repercussions of the decision, but there seems to be little public
interest in the primary issue of how to enforce our Trademark Licensee Code
of Conduct. It is imperative that the University make itself and its
processes clearly understood to the general public. We should publicize
our governance procedures. We should clarify the contexts of our
decisions. We should publicly focus on the substantive issues and take
the lead in generating and disseminating knowledge about them.
6. STANDARDS.
What criteria should the Senate use in creating a monitoring system
designed to assure compliance with the University’s code of conduct?
First, to be clear: the University has
approved, and there is to the knowledge of this committee no controversy
concerning, the Trademark Licensee Code of Conduct. This Code of Conduct stipulates the
principles that University of Oregon licensees will abide by in the production
or sale of licensed objects. The
University anticipates employing one or more monitoring agencies to assure
compliance with the Code of Conduct.
We believe that this objective should not be obscured by arguments over
the relative disadvantages and advantages of particular monitoring agents.
Second, the University should not see
itself bound to any one monitoring organization. The University should seek effective monitoring of the Code of
Conduct. As such, no one monitoring
organization may provide for an effective oversight. That is, the University may choose to join more than one
monitoring organization, seeking to gather information from multiple sources
and agencies. Indeed, the Code of
Conduct calls for trademark licensees to make determinations “based upon
examination of reports from governmental, human rights, labor and business
organizations and after consultation with relevant trademark licensees.” The
university should do so as well, casting a wide net for relevant information.
The University should seek out a monitoring system that provides the needed
information from various sources. Additionally, if information from
governmental, human rights, labor and business organizations and relevant
trademark licensees is the objective of a monitoring system, then it could be
that the University may need to utilize more than one monitoring agent.
Third, the University should carefully
calibrate the criteria used to evaluate the monitoring agencies, seeking to
employ standards of evaluation that reflect the complexity of the issues. In short, the University should distinguish
absolute redline standards that should be met at the outset from those that can
be achieved over time before it aligns itself with any particular monitoring
agency.
We
have identified four points of consensus.
First, the literature we have reviewed supports a conclusion that the
discipline of factory monitoring is still in its infancy; the standards,
protocols, and application of monitoring are still in development. Second, the informed consensus suggests that
no monitoring organization as currently configured is now fully capable of
permitting the University to judge if its licensees are in compliance with its Code
of Conduct. Third, the consensus of
the experts we have consulted indicates that at this point we can only judge
the potential of the various monitoring agents; that to freeze-frame a
monitoring agent at this time in order to issue a final judgment would fail to
account for the development of its potential and the trajectory of the
monitoring discipline. Fourth, because of the economies of scale, expert
opinion supports the utilization of collective monitoring. There are two collaborative monitoring
organizations that have significant potential: the WRC and FLA. We turn now to
the standards used in University discussions about these two monitoring
organizations.
The WRC
President Frohnmayer has listed four
major issues of concern about the University’s membership in the WRC. He argues first that the governance of the
WRC does not adequately represent the University’s interest. Second, he believes the membership balance
of the WRC is out of line; i.e., that the WRC’s decision not to include
corporations may be a fatal flaw.
Third, he believes that the meetings held by the WRC must be open. Finally, he stipulates that WRC members should
have full disclosure of all organizational funds. In addition, he and others have questioned the financial
viability of the WRC.
We believe these are reasonable
expectations. However, the WRC
continues to evolve, suggesting that we should resist the temptation to reach a
determinative decision in the short term. The WRC has added University members
to its governance and if one counts student membership, then the WRC is near
the President’s criterion. Second, the
WRC, in contrast to the FLA’s philosophy of collaboration with corporations,
seeks to establish a liaison with corporations, but believes it can provide the
best information outside of the spheres of corporate control. This approach will need to be
developed. Third, based on reports from
observers, the WRC holds business meetings in public and its personnel meetings
in private. We understand, however, that WRC meetings are not open to the
press. Fourth, WRC officials state that
the bulk of the WRC funds come from non-union granting agencies and fees from
member schools. WRC supporters believe
that they will gather the funds necessary to sustain monitoring
activities. We have not achieved
independent verification of these claims, but we do not have reason to doubt
the opinions of the WRC University representatives who have told us that they
believe the WRC will likely evolve into a financially viable organization, not
beholden to union financial support.
For a much more critical view of the WRC, see James M. O’ Fallon and
Camara Jones, “UO, the WRC and Nike – An Inquiry.”
Members
of the Trademark Licensing Code of Conduct committee presented five major
reasons why the University should not join the FLA. First, they feared that the FLA was controlled by multinational corporations
and that the FLA was thus analogous to the “fox guarding the chicken
coop.” Second, they did not believe the
FLA sponsored truly independent monitoring.
Members were particularly concerned about the FLA’s reliance on
pre-announced monitoring. Third, they
suggested that FLA monitors would have financial ties with the companies that
contract with the factories, thereby
affecting the monitors’ ability to be
impartial. Fourth, they argued that the
FLA process of certifying companies as meeting Codes of Conduct did not include
a sufficient number of factories.
Finally, they noted that the FLA did not permit public disclosure of
information.
As with the WRC, the FLA has evolved since the Trademark Licensing Committee held its meetings in March and April 2000, further illustrating the need to allow the discipline of monitoring and monitoring organizations to grow. First, our discussions with the three university representatives to the WRC (Marcella Davis, University of Iowa; Eric Davis, Middlebury College; and Rut Tufts, University of North Carolina) reveal that all three believe the WRC and the FLA are still in the early stages of development and that for some universities it would be a prudent move to join both organizations. Second, the FLA has, since the March and April 2000 Trademark Licensing Code of Conduct committee meetings, developed a thoughtful protocol of monitoring that addresses most of the objections raised by the committee members. The FLA does work from a philosophy of collaboration with corporations and factories, yet it still maintains a significant NGO presence. We believe the significant presence of NGO’s in the governmental structure of the FLA mitigates the concern of total corporate control. Our review of the FLA’s new monitoring protocol indicates that the organization plans to engage in both announced and unannounced monitoring. The new protocols for monitoring accreditation seem promising, suggesting that the FLA is attempting to secure independent monitors. Because the monitoring discipline is young, we are unable to comment on the FLA’s process of certification. Further, the FLA has responded to the specific agenda of Universities by creating a “University Advisory Committee” which is charged to draft a single Trademark Licensee Code of Conduct which may hold a higher standard, especially with regard to women’s rights.
In summary, the FLA of April 2000 is not the FLA of September 2000. While not all of the objections to the FLA have been addressed, it is one of the two collaborative monitoring organizations with the most potential.
Since
most of our monitoring systems are internal to the University, the decision to
engage an “outside” monitor, the WRC, appears to chart new territory.
However, if one considers the existence of outside reviewers for faculty
evaluations, academic programs, accreditation, etc., there appears to be no new
precedent set by the decision. Further, since those monitoring systems
all fall within the academic arena, one can look towards athletics to see
evidence of external monitoring, in the form of organizations such as the NCAA.
If the UO chooses to implement a Trademark Licensee Code of Conduct,
it must also ensure that the Code is enforced. If an outside
monitor is necessary to do so, then membership in monitoring organizations
necessarily follows. The question arises: Does the decision to join
the WRC set a precedent which requires the UO to investigate the manufacture of
countless other items and goods used within the campus community? The
simple answer is no. In this case the UO took action to enforce standards
it has set for the display of its trademark, or “logo.” The protection of
its trademark is the distinguishing factor in this decision, such that the
decision itself does not necessarily extend to items or goods that do not carry
the “logo.” Therefore, there are no necessary implications for future
decisions caused by our membership in a monitoring organization.
V. From Issue Clarification to Action:
Four
Recommendations
As we have noted, our committee is not
charged with determining whether the decision to join the WRC, as opposed to
the FLA or any other monitoring group, was correct, nor is it charged to decide
about the continuation of membership in the WRC. We do believe, however, that we can assist the University
community by offering our judgment on the issues we have studied in the form of
recommendations. Organizations attempting to engage in monitoring are in
experimental stages and all decisions should be provisional until the dust has
settled and a clear pathway towards successful monitoring emerges. This
is not to say that the UO should step back and not participate. Rather,
the UO should take the lead in helping to create a monitoring organization
which will best meet the needs of the campus and our extended community. The recommendations we offer are a result of
our study of the issues surrounding the University’s decision to join the
WRC. We offer four recommendations to
the University Senate Executive Committee:
1. Committee Expansion
We recommend the expansion of this Review
Committee into the Senate Ad hoc Committee on Trademark Licensees and
Monitoring. Membership would include
administrators, faculty, and students, and the committee’s charge would be to
continue the work of this Review Committee, including the coordination of all
campus discussion of the issue, and to report to the Senate Executive Committee
on a regular basis.
We believe that the University will
continue to face the issues raised by the WRC controversy, and that the labor
conditions of those who produce material goods for us, both nationally and
internationally, will remain at the center of discussion and debate. As such,
we recommend the creation of a committee to “monitor the monitors” and to study
University policy as it relates to labor issues.
2. The goal of University policy in this arena
should be to seek compliance with its Trademark Licensee Code of Conduct.
Our committee urges the Senate to place
the highest priority on the values codified in the Trademark Licensee Code
of Conduct. Unfortunately, the debates
and arguments surrounding the University’s decision to join the WRC have
featured the strengths and weaknesses of monitoring agencies, obscuring an
understanding of the standards set forth in the Code. As we have explained, these standards
reflect an evolving sense that the University’s mission to promote social
justice extends to the issues raised by globalization.
We suggest that the Senate revisit the
question of University involvement in “political activity” as many friends of
the University are not convinced that the University should enact Codes of
Conducts and hire outside agencies to assure compliance with them. While our committee believes that the
mission of the University requires value choices designed to enhance the
welfare of society, many friends of the University need clear and cogent
explanations why we have created and seek compliance with a Licensing Code of
Conduct
3. The University should align itself with
creditable and viable governmental, non-governmental, human rights, industry
and labor organizations to assure compliance with its Trademark Licensee
Code of Conduct.
The Code requires trademark
licensees to “consult with governmental, human rights, labor and business
organizations.” We believe the
University should seek a system that draws from these sources as well as others
to assure compliance. If this is true, then the University’s system of ensuring
compliance with the Code should yield information from multiple sources,
cultivate public transparency, produce flexible standards for comparison and
evaluation, and assume that systems of compliance in the global market are
still in their infancy. Such organizations as the FLA, WRC, CCC, SA8000, and
ETI have the potential of offering useful information. We believe compliance with the University of
Oregon’s Code should come from an optimal combination of incentives
provided to and pressures put on our licensees.
Based on our investigations, we believe
the FLA and the WRC are the two collaborative monitoring organizations
commanding the greatest potential to provide the University with the
information we need to achieve compliance with our Code. In making this recommendation, we agree with
those who believe that the two organizations have very different philosophical
orientations and that the dialectic between the two would be useful for the
purposes of gaining compliance with our Code.
4. Research
Consistent
with the University’s research, teaching, and service mission, the institution
should continue to encourage study of the issues raised by labor practices in a
global society. There is a lacuna of
sound academic research on emerging issues of globalization. This void should be filled by research
generated within institutions such as ours.
The fruits of our endeavors will provide necessary knowledge and tools
for those who work in areas of the global economy.
We recommend that the University embark
on a thorough study of labor issues,
globalization, and the monitoring of off-shore factories. This can be accomplished through
The following Code
of Conduct is the result of a yearlong study and recommendation by a
Presidential Committee. While the University of Oregon desires that such a code
become fully operational as soon as practicable, it recognizes that a number of
its principles need further definition and clarity in order to provide proper
enforcement. Two of these principles are the “living wage” and “freedom of
association” provisions. At this time, these are unenforceable provisions, but
for purposes of this code, they do reflect University aspirations. For the
contract term of 2000-2001, the University will be guided by Section C of this
Code, “Labor Standards Environment,” which specifies that the University will
examine a variety of reports on working conditions and will indeed consult on
these issues with all affected licensees. There is no anticipation of any
formal monitoring process during the coming contract year.
Standards Section
Notice: The
principles set forth in the Code shall apply to all University of Oregon
trademark licensees. As a condition of being permitted to produce and/or sell
Licensed Articles, trademark licensees must comply with the Code. Trademark
licensees are required to adhere to the Code within six (6) months of
notification of the Code and as required in applicable license agreements.Standards: Trademark licensees
agree to operate workplaces and to contract with companies whose workplaces
adhere to the standards and practices described below. The University prefers
that trademark licensees exceed these standards. However, trademark licenses
containing sub-licensees for products manufactured under licenses between the
University and other licensors shall be covered by the standards established by
those licensors who have such standards in place.
A.Legal
Compliance: Trademark licensees must comply with all applicable legal
requirements of the country(ies) of manufacture inconducting business related
to or involving the production or sale of licensed articles. Where there are
differences or conflicts with the Code and the laws of the country(ies) of
manufacture, the higher standard shall prevail, subject to the considerations
stated in Section C. (However, nothing in this agreement shall be interpreted
to require a licensee to violate the laws of any country of manufacture.)
B.Employment
Standards: Trademark licensees shall comply with the following standards:
1.Wages and
Benefits: Trademark licensees recognize that wages are essential to meeting
employees’ basic needs. Trademark licensees shall pay employees, as a floor,
wages and benefits that comply with all applicable laws and regulations, and
that provide for essential needs and establish a dignified living wage for
workers and their families. A living wage is a “take home” or “net” wage,
earned during a country’s legal maximum work week, but not more than 48 hours.
A living wage provides for the basic needs (housing, energy, nutrition,
clothing, health care, education, potable water, childcare, transportation and
savings) of an average family unit of employees in the garment manufacturing
employment sector of the country divided by the average number of adult wage
earners in the family unit of employees in the garment manufacturing employment
sector of the country.
2.Working
Hours: Hourly and/or quota-based wage employees shall not be required to work
more than the lesser of (a) 48 hours per week or (b) the limits on regular
hours allowed by the law of the country of manufacture, and be entitled to at
least one day off in every seven day period, as well as holidays and vacations
(as legally recognized in the country of manufacture).
3.Overtime
Compensation: All overtime hours must be worked voluntarily by employees. In
addition to their compensation for regular hours of work, hourly and/or
quota-based wage employees shall be compensated for overtime hours at such a
premium rate as is legally required in the country of manufacture or, in those
countries where such laws do not exist, at a rate at least one and one-half
their regular hourly compensation rate.
4.Child Labor: Trademark licensees
shall not employ any person at an age younger than 15 (or 14, where, consistent
with International Labor Organization practices for developing countries, the
law of the country of manufacture allows such exception). Where the age
for completing
compulsory education is higher than the standard for the minimum age of
employment stated above, the higher age
for completing compulsory education shall apply to this section.
Trademark licensees agree to consult with governmental, human rights and nongovernmental organizations,
and to take reasonable steps as evaluated by the University to minimize the
negative impact on children released from employment as a result of implementation
or enforcement of the Code.
5.Forced Labor: There shall not be any use of forced prison
labor, indentured labor, bonded labor or other forced labor.
6.Health and Safety: Trademark
licensees shall provide a safe and healthy working environment to prevent
accidents and injury to health arising out of, linked with, or occurring in the
course of work or as a result of the operation of Licensee facilities. In the
case of
work-related
injury, factories will provide just compensation. In addition, trademark
licensees must comply with the following
provisions:
a. The
Licensee shall ensure that its direct operations and any subcontractors comply
with all workplace safety and health regulations established by the national
government where the production facility is located.
b. The
Licensee shall ensure that its direct operations and any subcontractors comply
with all health and safety conventions of the International Labor Organization
(ILO) ratified and adopted by the country in which the production facility is
located. In case of a conflict between Section 6a and 6b, the Licensee will
adhere to a standard that is more health-protective for a given standard.
c.Education
and training will be regularly conducted to help workers deal with hazards and
dangerous materials.
1. Nondiscrimination:
No person shall be subject to any discrimination in employment, including
hiring, salary, benefits, advancement, discipline, termination or retirement,
on the basis of gender, race, religion, age, disability, sexual orientation,
nationality, political opinion, or social or ethnic origin.
2. Harassment
or Abuse: Every employee shall be treated with dignity and respect. No employee
shall be subject to any physical, sexual, psychological or verbal harassment or
abuse. Trademark licensees will not use or tolerate any form of corporal
punishment.
3.Freedom of
Association and Collective Bargaining: Trademark licensees shall recognize and
respect the right of employees to freedom of association and collective
bargaining. No employee shall be subject to harassment, intimidation or
retaliation in their efforts to freely associate or bargain collectively.
Trademark licensees shall not cooperate with governmental agencies and other
organizations that use the power of the State to prevent workers from
organizing a union of their choice. Trademark licensees shall allow union
organizers free access to employees. Trademark licensees shall recognize the
union of the employees’ choice.
4.Women’s
Rights: Women workers will receive equal remuneration, including benefits,
equal treatment, equal evaluation of the quality of their work, and equal opportunity to fill all positions as
male workers. Pregnancy tests will not be a condition of employment, nor will
they be demanded of employees. Workers who take maternity leave will not face
dismissal nor threat of dismissal, loss of seniority or deduction of wages, and will be able to
return to their former employment at the same rate of pay and benefits. Workers
will not be forced or pressured to use contraception. Workers will not be
exposed to hazards, including glues and solvents, that may endanger their
safety, including their reproductive health. Trademark licensees shall provide
appropriate services and accommodation to
women workers in connection with pregnancy.
C.Labor
Standards Environment: In countries where law or practice conflicts with these
labor standards, Trademark licensees agree to consult with governmental, human
rights, labor and business organizations and to take effective actions as
evaluated by the University of Oregon to achieve full compliance with each of
these standards. Trademark licensees further agree to refrain from any actions
that would diminish the protections of these labor standards. In addition to
all other rights under the Licensing Agreement, the University reserves the
right to refuse renewal of Licensing Agreements for goods made in countries
where (in the University’s sole determination): (a) progress toward
implementation of the employment standards in the Code is no longer being made;
and (b) compliance with the employment standards in the Code is deemed
impossible. The University shall make such determinations based upon
examination of reports from governmental, human rights, labor and business
organizations and after consultation with the relevant trademark licensees.
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 16:51:17 -0700
Dear Nils:
Thanks for
your kind e-mail of 7/20. I’m sorry that I missed you, but I did leave a brief
voice mail message.
I think there
is a role for the “Six” to consider, apart from any pretense that student
unrest will abate suddenly. Myles and others are correct that electronic
communications have substantially magnified the perceived influence (as well
as, in my institution’s case, the flow of vitriolic misinformation) concerning
any issue of national attention. At the same time, I think it is critically
important for research universities to keep the high ground on issues which are
of global
importance in
the globalization debate. This point is true, especially, of questions, which
may be posed quite concretely and to which answers, and sometimes data
presently are lacking. This listing is not original with me, but I endorse its
importance, and hope to engage our own campus. Consider the following (and
pardon the length):
1. What
happens to workers after contract production moves on ? The emphasis in public
discourse is all on presumed exploitation. Shoe production and apparel
production, a highly technical industry, was introduced to Korea, Taiwan etc.
Now, even though many northern hemisphere companies have moved after production
costs rose in these countries, there remains a strong local industry. It would
be valuable to look at this issue in many industries including computers and
chip production.
2. What
happens to workers after they leave contract factories? Typically they only
work in factories for 3-5 years. The Population Council has done very
interesting research on women factory workers in Bangla Desh. I am told that
the results they report are very positive. But it would be important to know
where the experience of factory work has yielded good results and why, where it
had been deleterious and why. If there are parallels to the western experience
there may be great differences here.
3. We are all
aware of the growing gap between per capita income in high income countries and
the world’s poorest countries. What has been the role of globalization in the
development of that gap? It existed before the current offshore production
system and has certainly widened in a period coterminous with globalization.
But what factors other than the spread of global production account for it? The
gap has been narrowed for Korea and Taiwan through offshore production. Where
are the results deleterious, where beneficial and why? In this respect it may
be very important to understand whether global production is a new economic and
political phenomenon, or merely an extension of older forms of capitalism.
4. What are
the forces producing anti-globalization sentiment, and what are the sources of
funding for the multiplicity of action groups related to that sentiment? If we
understood the sources of the sentiment better, there could be some
constructive movement toward dealing with it.
5 .What models
could be developed of fruitful collaboration between organized labor and
employers working in countries where “freedom of association” as we understand
and experience it simply does not exist? I am told that Nike and the
International Youth Foundation have found ways to open dialogue between workers
and management through surveys of worker opinion about their work experience.
It would be very valuable to have informed and constructive minds study this
question and recommend even better ways to proceed.
6. What
fruitful ways can be developed to enable useful discussion, leading to
significant outcomes, not just name-calling, between global producers and a
large and amorphous NGO community? Since there are many thousands of NGO’s
founded every year, some way of structuring a dialogue needs to be created.
This is a large problem in political theory, which warrants serious work. We
are witnessing the emergence of a significant set of political forces outside
the normal democratic process, and a need to establish some theory of
representation and consent in relation to them.These are some initial thoughts,
Nils. Feel free to share this message with Myles, Stan and your other
colleagues.
Best regards,
Dave
Appendix Three: Resources