Statement by President Bollinger on Workers Rights Consortium

February 18, 2000
Contact:
  • umichnews@umich.edu

Statement by President Bollinger on Workers Rights Consortium

University of Michigan President Lee C. Bollinger issued the following statement this afternoon:

“We at the University of Michigan pride ourselves on promoting socially responsible and ethical business practices. Last March, we announced a far-reaching policy in the Human Rights/Anti-Sweatshop Code of Conduct for licensees manufacturing goods with the University logo or name. Our requirement for full public disclosure has helped lead many licensees and other universities in the same direction. For these efforts and others, we have been recognized as leaders in national efforts to eradicate sweatshops and improve the working conditions of those who make licensed goods.

“We also created an advisory committee of faculty, staff and students to study our code and enforcement mechanisms and to recommend next steps. I want to commend publicly the diligent efforts of the members of the committee led by Professor John Chamberlin. While the committee was formed in June, the members have been meeting regularly since the fall. Their commitment of time and thought has been extraordinary. That committee has prepared its most recent interim report and expects to have its full deliberations completed by the end of February. To summarize, the committee has undertaken the following:

1. Helped implement our full public disclosure requirement, which went into effect on

2. Evaluated and proposed revisions to the Code of Conduct, which were presented to the University community at a recent public forum;

3. Participated in collective efforts such as the Independent Universities Initiative, consisting of the University of Michigan, the University of California system, Harvard, Ohio State and Notre Dame, that aims to better understand and improve the working conditions of those who labor to produce licensed goods;

4. Studied methods to ensure compliance with the University code of conduct.”This last issue has been the most difficult and most controversial. Virtually every commentator admits that there is no immediate solution to the longstanding labor problems spanning continents and cultures. Two primary alternatives—the Workers’ Rights Consortium (WRC) and the Fair Labor Association (FLA)—have emerged. The Advisory Committee has not endorsed either option at this point. Student activists and the Michigan Student Assembly have asked that the University affiliate with the still-to-be-formed Workers’ Rights Consortium. The Advisory Committee has expressed concerns about the WRC, particularly in the areas of the approach toward licensees, the investigatory process and the governance structure. Even advocates of the WRC admit that many key questions remain unanswered.

“The important work of the Advisory Committee must continue and it has my full support. The Advisory Committee believes that “it would be appropriate for the University to find a way to participate in the evolution of the WRC.” Furthermore, the Advisory Committee has said that it would be consistent for the University “to continue its dialogue concerning the WRC and to be willing to provide some resources to further this process.” We are open to joining any process that will advance the important goals we have articulated.

“Accordingly, today we are joining with our sister institutions, the University of Wisconsin-Madison and Indiana University in the following statement:

‘We today announce that we will conditionally join with the Workers Rights Consortium in order to try to work toward a fair and just monitoring system and governance structure that will address our principles and will show sensitivity towards licensee concerns.’We take this step without endorsing all of the provisions stated in the preliminary charter of the WRC, which will meet in April in New York City. As part of the WRC process, we will work actively to address the concerns articulated by the Advisory Committee, such as the fairness and credibility of the monitoring system as well as governance structure and organizational viability.

‘We will participate in the process so long as we are making progress towards achieving these goals and we commit to using our best efforts to advance the process.

‘We will rely on our respective Advisory Committees or successor groups composed of faculty, staff and students, to inform our judgment about whether participation in the process continues to be warranted in our universities’ best interest.

‘We also will commit resources to support appropriate pilot projects or other efforts to create effective education or enforcement mechanisms.'”

Human Rights/Anti-Sweatshop Code of Conductadvisory committeefull public disclosure requirementWorkers’ Rights Consortium