Module 2 Sweatshop Labor the Case of Russell Athletic Essay

In-Depth Integrative Case 1.1 Student Advocacy and “Sweatshop” Labor. The Case of Russell Athletic
109
based on the foundation of freedom, justice, and peace. company. USAS pressure tactics persuaded one of the
The UN stated that the rights should be guaranteed with nation’s leading sportswear companies, Russell Athletic,
out distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, lan- to agree to rehire 1.200 workers in Honduras who lost
guage, religion, political or other opinion, national or their jobs when Russell closed their factory soon after the
social origin, property, birth, or other status. Further- workers had unionized. 29
more, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the Russell Corporation, founded by Benjamin Russell in
political, jurisdictional, or international status of the 1902, is a manufacturer of athletic shoes, apparel, and
country or territory to which a person belongs. The foun- sports equipment. Russell products are marketed under
dational rights also include the right to life, liberty, and many brands, including Russell Athletic, Spalding,
security of person and protection from slavery or servi- Brooks, Jerzees, Dudley Sports, and others. This company
tude, torture, or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment with more than 100 years of history has been a leading
or punishment. 25 Articles 23, 24, and 25 discuss issues supplier of team uniforms at the high school, college, and
with immediate implications for sweatshops. By extrapo- professional level. Russell Athletic active wear and col-
lation, they provide recognition of the fundamental lege-licensed products are broadly distributed and mar-
human right to nondiscrimination, personal autonomy or keted through department stores, sports specialty stores,
liberty, equal pay, reasonable working hours and the abil- retail chains, and college bookstores.90 After an acquisi-
ity to attain an appropriate standard of living, and other tion in August 2006, Russell’s brands joined Fruit of the
humane working conditions. All these rights were rein- Loom in the Berkshire Hathaway family of products.
forced by the United Nations in its 1966 International Russell/Fruit of the Loom is the largest private em-
Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights 26 ployer in Honduras. Unlike other major apparel brands,
These are but two examples of standards promulgated Russell/Fruit of the Loom owns all eight of its factories
by the international labor community, though the enforce- in Honduras rather than subcontracting to outside manu-
ment of these and other norms is spotty. In the apparel facturers. The incident related to Russell Athletic’s busi-
industry in particular, the process of internal and external ness in Honduras that led to a major scandal in 2009 was
monitoring has matured such that it has become the norm the company’s decision to fire 145 workers in 2007 for
at least to self-monitor, if not to allow external third-supporting a union. This ignited the anti-sweatshop cam-
party monitors to assess compliance of a supplier factory paign against the company. Russell later admitted its
with the code of conduct of a multinational corporation wrongdoing and was forced to reverse its decision. How-
or with that of NGOs. Though a number of factors ever, the company continued violating worker rights in
affected this evolution, one such factor involved pressure 2008 by constantly harassing the union activists and mak-
by American universities on their apparel suppliers, ing threats to close the Jerzees de Honduras factory. It
which resulted in two multistakeholder efforts–the Fair finally closed the factory on January 30, 2009, after
Labor Association, primarily comprising and funded by months of battling with a factory union.”
the multinational retailers, and the Worker Rights Con-
sortium, originally perceived as university driven.
NGOs’ Anti-Sweatshop Pressure
Through a cooperative effort of these two organizations. The Worker Rights Consortium (WRC) has conducted a
large retailers such as Nike and Adidas not only have thorough investigation of Russell’s activities, and ultimately
allowed external monitoring, but Nike has now published released a 36-page report on November 7, 2008, document-
a complete list of each of its suppliers.27
ing the facts of worker rights violations by Russell in its
factory Jerzees de Honduras, including the instances of
The Case of Russell Athletic
death threats received by the union leaders. The union’s
While some argue that sweatshop scandals cause little or vice president, Norma Mejia, publicly confessed at a Berk-
no impact on the corporate giants because people care shire Hathaway shareholders’ meeting in May 2009 that
more for the ability to buy cheap and affordable products she had received death threats for helping lead the union.
rather than for working conditions of those who make The Worker Rights Consortium continued monitoring the
these products,28 the recent scandal around the Russell flow of the Russell Athletic scandal and issued new reports
Athletic brand has proved that it may no longer be as easy and updates on this matter throughout 2009, including its
for a corporation to avoid the social responsibility for its recommendation for Russell’s management on how to
outsourcing activities as it has been for a long time. mediate the situation and resolve the conflict.
November 2009 became a tipping point in the many years As stated in its mission statement, the Worker Rights
of struggle between the student anti-sweatshop movement Consortium is an independent labor rights monitoring
and the corporate world. An unprecedented victory was organization, whose purpose is to combat sweatshops and
won by the United Students Against Sweatshops (USAS) protect the rights of workers who sew apparel and make
coalition against Russell Athletic, a corporate giant owned other products sold in the United States. The WRC con-
by Fruit of the Loom, a Berkshire Hathaway portfolio ducts independent, in-depth investigations, issues public

Purchase answer to see full
attachment