EDITORIAL BOARD Christine Byrd
 Editor in Chief
Michael Litschi
 Managing Editor
Jonah Lalas
 Viewpoint Editor
Barbara Ortutay
 News Editor
Amy Golod
 Staff Representative
Timothy Kudo
 Staff Representative
Brian O’Camb
 Staff Representative
  Unsigned editorials represent a majority opinion of
the Daily Bruin Editorial Board. All other columns, letters and
artwork represent the opinions of their authors. Â Â All
submitted material must bear the author’s name, address, telephone
number, registration number, or affiliation with UCLA. Names will
not be withheld except in extreme cases. Â Â The Bruin
complies with the Communication Board’s policy prohibiting the
publication of articles that perpetuate derogatory cultural or
ethnic stereotypes. Â Â When multiple authors submit
material, some names may be kept on file rather than published with
the material. The Bruin reserves the right to edit submitted
material and to determine its placement in the paper. All
submissions become the property of The Bruin. The Communications
Board has a media grievance procedure for resolving complaints
against any of its publications. For a copy of the complete
procedure, contact the Publications office at 118 Kerckhoff Hall.
Daily Bruin 118 Kerckhoff Hall 308 Westwood Plaza Los Angeles, CA
90024 (310)825-9898
A woman in Thailand arrives at work, dusts aside the rat feces
on her chair and turns on the sewing machine she will use for the
next 16 hours. Feeling the rain dripping on her head through the
cracks in the roof, she wonders how she and her 12-year-old son
working downstairs will eat tonight. But the boss doesn’t
care. After all, a Bruin needs a sweatshirt on the other side of
the world.
It could be happening.
In recent years, students across the University of California
and other college campuses protested because the merchandise
emblazoned with their college logo may have been manufactured in
sweatshops. They demanded policy changes to improve working
conditions at the factories, resulting in a new UC Code of Conduct
last January. (The code is available online at
http://www.usasnet.org/resources/Codes/university%20of%20california.html).
But rules on paper mean nothing if they are not enforced.
Knowing this, the UC and other universities, including Harvard
University, Ohio State University, the University of Notre Dame and
the University of Michigan commissioned a report researching
workplace conditions at major college apparel manufacturers.
The UC paid $40,000 to participate in the research.
The report revealed that a number of apparel manufacturers for
the universities in the study overlook child labor laws, maintain
substandard working conditions, discriminate against women and pay
less than livable wages. Though these conditions are more prevalent
in foreign countries, they also exist in the United States in
sweatshops that exploit illegal immigrants.
Now we know some UCLA logo apparel is manufactured under
inhumane conditions, despite the UC Code of Conduct banning it.
While the report represents a positive step toward enforcing UC
labor policies, it also limits students’ ability to take
action.
The report released to the public (http://www.ucop.edu/ucophome/coordrev/policy/initiative-report.pdf)
does not name the manufacturers that violate the UC’s Code of
Conduct and does not specify which university’s apparel is
made by which manufacturer. The factories are only referred to as
“Factory 1″ and “Factory 2.”
By excluding the companies’ names, factory managers and
locations, the report prevents students from protesting,
petitioning or boycotting violators.
STUDY PARTICIPANTS These manufacturers are
among the top college apparel licensees and agreed to participate
in the study.
- Adidas-Salomon
- Apparel Sales
- Champion
- Gear for Sports
- Jansport
- Nike
- VF Knitwear
- Zephyr Graf-X
- 4004 Inc. (Steve and Barry’s)
SOURCE: Independent University Initiative
CONNIE WU/Daily Bruin Senior Staff Web Adaptation by MONICA
KWONG/Daily Bruin Senior Staff Due to the lack of information,
students do not know how much of their apparel is produced by
sweatshop labor or the extent of the violations.
It is possible that one of the universities has relatively
little merchandise manufactured in substandard conditions or that
the violations are not as grotesque in comparison with the other
schools. But the report does not specify. How then, are consumers
supposed to make informed decisions about which producer’s
clothing they wish to purchase?
The UC is a large enough institution to require change and lead
the way for other universities and should not enter into contracts
with manufacturers that refuse to run safe, humane work places.
Though the UC’s code supports that policy, their actions do
not.
The report recommends educating workers about their right to
livable wages, a safe and healthy working environment and freedom
from discrimination. Manufacturers who demonstrate willingness to
change and are not in excessive violation of the policy should be
encouraged to continue change and education.
Workers who know their rights are more likely to fight for
them.
The university listened when students protested sweatshop labor
and created the new policy. Now, students must urge the university
to enforce it.