Of these institutions: Columbia University; University of California, Los Angeles; University of Southern California; University of Washington; University of Oregon; Purdue University; Stanford University; Harvard University; Penn State University; can you figure out which one doesn’t belong? And, more importantly, why?
All except one cut their licensing contracts with Russell Athletic because of its violations of workers’ rights. In fact, 58 universities have cut their contracts, not only because of ethical reasons, but because it’s bad business to put your school’s logo on a shirt made in a sweatshop. But of these colleges, who stands out and continues to support Russell? The Duck stands alone.
Russell Athletic is a supplier of apparel to colleges and universities across the United States. In order to produce clothing with a school’s logo on it, Russell must obtain a licensing contract with the institution. UO has such a contract with Russell, which is up for renewal every year at the end of June.
Many schools chose to cut their Russell contracts due to circumstances concerning the closure of a factory called Jerzees, located in Honduras. Like most production facilities there, workers at Jerzees faced an unjust and unsafe working environment. To address these problems, workers began organizing a union in 2007 to demand such things as living wages and access to basic health care.
Despite its best efforts at union busting, in early 2008 Russell faced the prospect of being forced to provide concessions to the workers under Honduran laws. However, instead of following through, Russell simply closed the doors of the factory, leaving 1,800 workers without jobs. This prompted Worker Rights Consortium investigations, which found that the decision to close the factory was at least partly because of the union, constituting a violation of Honduran labor laws.
In many cases, the blatant disregard for the workers’ rights in this situation is a violation of codes of conduct that universities place on their licensees. Students have demanded that universities cut contracts with Russell, and that Russell reopen its factory at full capacity and let the union remain intact. Pressure has mounted as more universities prove they will not stand for this type of misconduct. However, Oregon’s administration has sat idly by and continued its relationship with Russell.
For too long, UO has had the reputation of being a school that puts profit, and athletic contracts, before standards of decency. In 2001, the administration opted out of the Worker Rights Consortium because of pressure from donors and a subsequent Oregon University System ruling. The ruling allowed University to place standards on licensees if evidence suggested they were violating the law. Not only has the WRC found Russell violated labor laws by closing the Jerzees factory, these findings were corroborated by the Fair Labor Association, a monitoring organization that is widely supported within the apparel industry.
To cut our contract with Russell would not only be within the legal limits of the OUS ruling, it would be smart business. The Duck Store already stopped carrying clothing produced by Russell because of this case.
This is the administration’s chance to take the first step toward rebuilding UO’s image that was tainted by actions in 2001. We once again have the opportunity to stand up for human rights, ethical labor practices and the rule of law. Our contract with Russell is up for renewal at the end of June. The administration should either cut our contract with Russell immediately or pledge to not renew. For more information, check out http://reininrussell.blogspot.com and http://www.workersrights.org/RussellRightsViolations.asp.
This time around, the University should not be left in the dust.
[email protected]