Panelists say tougher standards are needed for apparel makers

From left, Bruce Siegal, vice president of the Collegiate Licensing Co., Jonathan Rosenblum, CLC consultant, Jefferson Cowie, assistant professor of collective bargaining, and Risa Lieberwitz, professor of collective bargaining, are panelists at the campus code of conduct forum in Goldwin Smith Hall. Nicola Kountoupes/University Photography

By Linda Myers

The pages of the Big Red Book -- Cornell's glossy admissions brochure -- are filled with photos of smiling students sporting Cornell sweatshirts, T-shirts with growling bears and Big Red baseball caps with visors turned backward, hip-hop style. "Official" college apparel is big business these days, earning revenues of more than $2 billion. Now the way in which hot items like these are made has become the subject of a heated debate.

Monday evening, Feb. 22, about 200 people, mostly undergraduates, gathered in Goldwin Smith Lecture Hall D to hear a panel of Cornell faculty, students and a licensing representative argue the fine points of a code of practices to which manufacturers of collegiate licensed items may soon be required to adhere. The code, which was developed by a task force from 14 universities, including Cornell, and is still in draft stage, addresses fair wages, safe working conditions and workers' right to associate freely. The Collegiate Licensing Co. (CLC), Cornell's licensing agent, organized the task force and asked a range of constituent groups, including human rights groups and manufacturers, to review and approve the draft, or agree on changes. The Monday panel was part of the review process.

The panelists were: Mark Anner, a School of Industrial and Labor Relations doctoral student in international comparative labor law, who has worked on labor issues in Central America; Jefferson Cowie, a visiting assistant professor of collective bargaining, labor law and labor history; Bruce Siegal, vice president and general counsel at CLC; Jonathan Rosenblum, a labor attorney who consults for the CLC task force; David Stewart, director of community relations at Cornell and the university's coordinator of product licensing; Risa Lieberwitz, professor of collective bargaining; and David Unger, a member of Students Against Sweatshops, a campus group. Robert Frank, the Goldwin Smith Professor of Economics, Ethics and Public Policy, moderated the discussion. Frank teaches a course in ethics at the Johnson Graduate School of Management and is the author of Luxury Fever: Why Money Fails to Satisfy in an Era of Excess.

All eight panelists agreed that standards were needed, but most criticized the proposed code for being too lenient and worried that it might be hard to enforce.

Siegal asserted that the code would improve conditions for workers and keep good companies involved in the manufacturing of licensed apparel. "To make this work, it must be acceptable to all constituents," he said.

Unger, a freshman in the ILR School, disagreed. "This is about power to effect change," he countered. "Cornell should not agree to the code unless it tries to strengthen it. We can't have a code that's merely a starting point." He received applause when he announced that he had the signatures of 1,600 students and 100 alumni on a petition calling for tougher requirements, including assuring workers the right to bargain collectively.

Cowie acknowledged the task force's efforts, stating: "Good faith has gone into writing this code, but it may be a case where half a loaf isn't better than none."

He cautioned the group to guard against paternalism ("Experts in industrialized countries shouldn't be telling workers in underdeveloped countries what to do.") and instead focus on accountability.

"We need strong national and international labor standards," said Rosenblum. "While codes aren't the answer, they are a supplement to those standards."

Anner offered the strongest criticism of the proposed code and the most specific remedies. He called for full disclosure -- that is, requiring manufacturers to disclose where their plants are located, the involvement of local human rights groups and the guarantee to workers of a livable wage as well as the rights of unopposed free association and collective bargaining. "In the current code," he observed, "workers do have the right to form a union. However, by failing to state that manufacturers may not engage in anti-union tactics, such as mass firings, the code essentially allows them to do anything in their power to oppose unionization." Anner's call for Cornell to "do the right thing" drew a standing ovation.

Lieberwitz praised student organizers of the forum for leading the way, and she called them "inspiring." She declared to the audience: "You are hearing a world vision -- a vision for how we should see ourselves in relation to others."

Siegal found himself under fire during the question-and-answer session for his pragmatic views, and some audience members rudely challenged Frank's efforts to define the debate in "practical" rather than "moral" terms.

The forum was co-sponsored by the university and Students Against Sweatshops, who handed out a position statement calling for stronger requirements, along with fluorescent green stickers that read: "No sweat: We need a code that works."

Stewart had the last word, however, when he soberly reminded the audience that revenues from licensed collegiate apparel represent less than 3 percent of the apparel industry's earnings. Students who are genuinely concerned about eliminating sweatshop labor, he said, will need to use their purchasing power to get their point across to the rest of the industry. In the meantime, he added, "We're hearing you. We're working very hard to do things right."