Sweatshops
Manila Times
The government has acknowledged that 18 sweatshops are operating in violation of labor laws, although an official of the Garments and Textile Export Board was quick to say that the firms are not sweatshops but merely “socially noncompliant” because they were made to correct their violations–and they did–once discovered.
Mr. Serafin Juliano, executive director of the garments board, an office in the Department of Trade and Industry, added that the number of the “socially noncompliant” was small, since there are 429 registered exporters in the country.
The board, together with the Department of Labor and Employment, is looking into the operations of textile and garment factories following an exposé in a newspaper of one such sweatshop in Taytay, Rizal. From this one example a leftist trade union made the rash conclusion that errant textile firms flourish in Metro Manila.
We are sensitive to the distinction made by Mr. Juliano between “sweatshops” and “socially noncompliant” firms, but the truth is that some employers habitually exploit their workers and violate labor and social laws.
The relatively “small” number of errant textile and garment firms, compared with the industry’s total, does not excuse the pattern of violations discovered by either the garments board or the labor department.
The garments industry is a strong pillar of the economy. It employs approximately 400,000 workers and exports an average of $3-billion worth of clothing each year.
Employers, however, are obliged to protect their workers and upgrade their working and living conditions. They are duty bound to comply with the labor and social laws of government. The industry and the government are also obliged to observe international labor conventions, such as those mandated by the International Labor Organization (ILO) and the World Trade Organization.
For example, the core labor standards incorporated in international trade agreements call for the strict observance of a number of ILO labor conventions that seek to eliminate, among others, all forms of compulsory labor and child labor. Violation of the core principles would have costly implications for exports and trade. For the Philippines, this could mean being shut out of some of its biggest export markets where trade unions are influential.
Additionally, foreign governments or corporations could impose sanctions if they discover that the exported products are the result of infractions of international labor standards.
The government should motivate garment firms to qualify for accreditation following compliance with international labor standards under the Worldwide Apparel Program.
The garment and the textiles industry should be encouraged to police itself and discipline disobedient members.
There are a number of ways the government can deal with the sweatshops.
Throw the book at deviative employers. We are glad that Labor Secretary Patricia Sto. Tomas has ordered the Taytay factory owner to restitute workers in the amount of P5.8 million in back wages.
A system of fines could straighten out infractions.
Uncompromising orders to employers to adopt reforms on the factory floor are necessary.
The government could bar sweatshops from exporting critical items or products with huge demands.
As a final measure, the labor department could close down factories repeatedly violating labor laws.
The “corrective” solution advocated by the garments board and the Confederation of Government Exporters is acceptable in the context of saving jobs. A calibrated approach aimed at determining levels of violation, however, would separate incorrigible violators and mark them for more effective sanctions.
No Comments, Comment or Ping
Reply to “Sweatshops”