The University of California was wrong Tuesday to oppose
anti-sweatshop legislation that aims to improve the living and
working conditions of workers who provide goods and services to the
UC. Two bills, AB 1557 and SB 578, instruct state agencies,
including the UC, to certify their contractors’ compliance
with existing state and federal labor laws.
These existing laws are necessary and reasonable. The new bills
reaffirm established principles of fair labor practices and mandate
their enforcement, reiterating the prohibition against child
laborers under the age of 15 and work weeks longer than 48
hours.
No worker should be expected to work without legal protections
““ it is unthinkable that state-contracted employees would be
expected to work in 19th century conditions. Requiring state
agencies to certify the practices of companies they employ will
increase the likelihood that laws will be followed. Unfortunately,
the bills generated opposition due to a handful of new rules that
may increase the cost of business.
The UC objected to two specific clauses, one calling for the use
of California firms even if they charge 10 percent more than
out-of-state firms and a second stating the need to “lift
workers and their families out of poverty.”
Responding to the 10 percent regulation, university
administrators said they are afraid the new rules might
“increase the price of whatever we’re trying to
buy,” adding that “it might just be someone’s
profit.” They are also concerned that the
“poverty” clause is loosely worded and could be
interpreted in a way that would further increase UC costs.
While it is possible that costs will increase for the UC system,
the goal of the law is to ensure living wages for workers, not
profits for companies. The UC should select companies that not only
follow the letter of the law but the spirit ““ if companies
take advantage of the 10 percent increase, yet continue to pay
workers poorly, the UC should not do business with them.
Furthermore, the selection of California companies could improve
the state’s economic situation. In the long run, this policy
may lead to more money for the UC system, thus offsetting the
possible cost increases.
In the meantime, the 10 percent rule should give contractors an
opportunity to maintain current profit levels and pay workers
significantly higher wages. Realistically, it is impossible to
guarantee absolutely every family an above-poverty wage. A
breadwinner with five children cannot expect this legislation to
completely change his or her life, but that’s not what these
bills are about.
Rather, they are designed to make sure state agencies do not
circumvent labor laws by subcontracting labor to companies with lax
protocols.
The UC should accept these laws as they stand. If, in the
future, they cause truly significant problems for the UC, the state
should respond and protect its university system. Until then, there
is no reason to think these new labor laws will hurt the UC in a
way that natural economic swings cannot correct.