Two Approaches in the Anti-Sweatshop Movement
Activists and labor groups continue to campaign a doctrine of unionization against corporate globalization with success in anti-sweatshop campaigns varying in approach. Where the movement first connected in social conscience, it is interesting to ask which of these approaches will shape its future? Opposition to the garment industry existed long before Kathy-Lee and Wal-Mart became synonymous with Sweatshops. Yet these media viruses along with awareness campaigns over Disney’s and Nike’s wage atrocities infused the campus activism of groups within the United Students Against Sweatshops movement.
What further propelled the successes of United Students Against Sweatshops (USAS) is their solidarity with foreign, as well as domestic workers. Throughout the 1990’s student activists organized hard fought battles from the Mexican Maquiladoras (factories) to living wage campaigns on their campuses. That these mostly privileged youth were able to form a principled solidarity with often-impoverished workers became a drastic tug on the unraveling of the garment industry. Perhaps the most vivid reaction to sweatshops is the horror induced by tiny children slaving away in factories. Yet USAS has learned to avoid sensationalizing the issue of child labor as an approach to activism, focusing more on aiding workers in their own efforts to improve conditions.
Child Labor activism is a broader sector of the Anti-Sweatshop movement that emphasizes victimization of the workers. One student activist, Molly McGrath, featured in Liza Featherstone’s book Students Against Sweatshops, described a common portrayal as “thousands of desperate workers with no control over their lives who are starving to death.” While McGrath is referring to the National Labor Committee’s (NLC) portrayal of women workers, her statement chimes into the criticism of organizations that rely on creating an image of helplessness to garner support. Its possible Charles Kernaghan, dubbed the man who made Kathy Lee cry and Executive Director of the NLC, could counter such a claim in the bravery of Honduran factory worker, Wendy Diaz as the global face of feminism. Also the fact that Diaz was 15 at the time she spoke up against Wal-Mart’s clothing line made her a media darling of raising awareness to child labor.
As much as both the NLC and USAS are in the fight together, the slight nuances in portrayals differ in how things get done. Perhaps this variation emerged when about three years after USAS formed, the organization honed in on a labor solidarity movement. The collaborative efforts of USAS and the NLC formed a unified code in the Worker Rights Consortium (WRC), but literature from NLC has more of a protectionist tone. For instance their mission statement begins: “âÂ?¦to help defend the human rights of workers”, whereas USAS’s mission statements put the emphasis on “Principles of Unity.” Drawing on another example from Liza Featherstone’s book, she writes that pictures of workers posted by students on USAS Websites hold a distinct contrast to the NLC’s use of photos depicting weary, helpless victims.
Another more extreme criticism of Child Labor activism comes from Llewellyn H. Rockwell’s essay in the book Child Labor and Sweatshops from Greenhaven Press. Rockwell, as president of a Libertarian Institute that strictly opposes government interference with the economy, considers campaigns to abolish child labor in developing nations, “leftist cultural imperialism.” His main target of disagreement here was with U.S. Labor Secretary Robert Reich’s efforts to fight child labor under the Clinton Administration. Where Reich’s liberal ideas towards policy became pivotal in labor activism, it rouses the Libertarian fear of protectionism in economics.
It is possible the variation in approach between USAS and the NLC reflects a microcosm of another growing wedge in a movement that’s backbone is solidarity. This is not to imply that either organization leans politically in one direction or other nor to anchor the movement in a semantics debate. As the Wikipedia entry for the NLC suggests, “one of (NCL’s) closest allies has been USAS.” This observation is born of the necessity to sharpen the perception observers may have of the movement and it’s future depends on that these observers are consumers. Consumer perception fluctuates within economic idealism, though it is often a top to bottom process in which organizations, governments and corporations often shape opinion. As both USAS and the NLC are important in transforming awareness into action, the question becomes which approach effectively influences the power of perception: victimized workers that need legislative oversight or a unified front to re-imagine globalization from the bottom up?
