Imagine the ASUO vice president handcuffed and arrested by Eugene police on the steps of Johnson Hall, or University President Dave Frohnmayer being so frightened by student protestors that he hides in an airport bathroom to avoid confrontation. Imagine Phil Knight – arguably the largest donor to the University in its history – pulling every dime of his donations. Imagine then-UO trustee Pat Kilkenny resigning in protest over the administration’s decisions. Finally, imagine hundreds of students camped out in front of the administration building for more than a week straight, eventually securing a unanimous vote of support for their demands from the faculty Senate.
It sounds unreal, but this was the scene at the University of Oregon nine years ago this month, when the campus was embroiled in a labor rights debate that received national media attention and is largely responsible for Nike’s souring image with regard to how it treats its foreign workers. Nearly a decade later, this debate still rages, but not nearly with the same fervor.
Last week, Step Up Oregon, a student group advocating for ethical business practices, expressed concern to the University regarding alleged human rights abuses by Russell Athletic, a UO apparel licensee. It called for the University to end its contract with Russell, pending its compliance with Honduran labor law and the Duck Store, a major purchaser of said apparel, echoed these concerns when it suspended purchases of Russell’s products pending further investigation.
Many universities, including the Universities of Washington and Miami, Duke, and Georgetown, have terminated their contracts with Russell Athletic as a result of its actions in Honduras. The University of Oregon should do the same.
It’s true that cutting a licensing contract at Oregon is nowhere near as easy as it is for other universities. Unlike UW, Duke and others, the University is not allowed to enforce its code of conduct pertaining to workers’ rights, after an Oregon University System restriction that resulted from the aforementioned Nike debacle. OUS rules require that UO business agreements can only be based upon the licensee’s “ability to perform, evidence of illegal activities or other criteria required or allowed [by law.]”
While the OUS policy is absurd in any context, it still leaves more than enough room for the administration to terminate its contract with Russell this June. In fact, the policy virtually requires it.
There is substantial evidence that Russell has violated the labor law of Honduras by taking intentional retaliatory actions against labor organizers in that country. Further abuses by Russell concerning working conditions and the nature of negotiations with workers might also constitute violations of international trade agreements and labor laws. This evidence alone provides basis, under the OUS policy, to terminate the contract.
Further, social responsibility to workers, consumers, and the environment all directly affects a company’s “ability to perform.” Unlike most corporations, UO doesn’t have the option of changing its brand name if it were to become negatively associated with human rights abuses in the minds of consumers. Thus, it stands to lose, in terms of finances and social credibility, every time a licensee abuses its workers while producing products carrying its name.
Whenever a company’s practices are so cruel or questionable as to warrant a cancellation of purchases by its consumers, its ability to perform economically is clearly hindered. By contrast, a licensee who behaves ethically in its business practices is not exposed to this kind of financial risk, as it creates fewer reasons to drive down consumer demand.
A company’s attitude toward its workers is an obvious and undeniable component of its “ability to perform.” This is not only confirmed by the Duck Store’s recent suspension of purchasing, but also by common sense.
Russell came into conflict with its workers when they asked for assistance in treating cancers, bone diseases and blindness they appeared to have contracted as a result of exposure to chemical dyes used in the manufacture of Russell’s clothing. By not ensuring the safety of its workers in the workplace, Russell is exposed to numerous financial risks: possible tort actions from workers, an increase in the cost of labor, increased need to recruit and train new employees to replace those lost to sickness, boycotts from consumers, regulatory risks, and countless other liabilities stemming from these abuses.
During the 2000 workers’ rights debate at UO, Nancy Young, a spokesperson for Russell Athletic, shared this argument. Russell’s spokesperson told the Emerald that “we’d be stupid not to do the right thing.” She went on to say that Russell’s global standards are more stringent than that of labor monitoring organizations, finally adding that, “it’s just good business.”
We ask Russell to again hold itself to this standard. We believe that it is in the best interests of both the University and Russell Athletic to ensure that the manufacture of the products bearing the University’s name is done in an ethical and legal way, one that respects the human rights of workers. It is in this best interest that we believe the University should end its contract with Russell and refrain from future business with the company until it comes into compliance with Honduran law by allowing its workers their right to unionize.
[email protected]
Supporting ethical labor practices
Daily Emerald
April 27, 2009
More to Discover