

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

The Cambodian government is failing to protect garment workers who are producing for international apparel brands from serious labor rights abuses, Human Rights Watch said in a new report. The predominantly women workers often experience forced overtime, pregnancy-based discrimination, and anti-union practices that neither the government nor major brands have adequately addressed.
The 140-page report, "Work Faster or Get Out': Labor Rights Abuses in Cambodia's Garment Industry" documents lax government enforcement of labor laws and brand actions that hinder monitoring and compliance. In recent years, wage protests, instances of garment workers fainting, and burdensome union registration procedures have spotlighted the plight of workers in Cambodia's garment factories.
"The Cambodian government should take swift measures to reverse its terrible record of enforcing its labor laws and protect workers from abuse," said Aruna Kashyap, senior women's rights researcher at Human Rights Watch. "These global apparel brands are household names. They have a lot of leverage, and can and should do more to ensure their contracts with garment factories are not contributing to labor rights abuses."
Human Rights Watch found that many factories repeatedly issued unlawful short-term contracts to avoid paying workers maternity and other benefits, and to intimidate and control them. Small factories that subcontract to larger export-oriented factories are more likely to hire workers on a casual basis, making it harder for workers to assert their rights because they risk being easily fired. Apparel brands have not taken adequate steps to end the illegal short-term contracts in their supplier factories - even where their supplier codes of conduct have clauses limiting their use. Cambodia's garment industry, dominated by foreign investments from Hong Kong, Taiwan, China, Singapore, Malaysia, and South Korea, is critical to the country's economy and women's livelihoods. Women make up 90 percent of the country's more than 700,000 garment workers in 1,200 garment businesses, according to the Ministry of Industry and Handicraft.
The Human Rights Watch report is based on interviews with more than 340 people, including 270 workers from 73 factories in Phnom Penh and nearby provinces, union leaders, government representatives, labor rights advocates, the Garment Manufacturers Association of Cambodia, and international apparel brand representatives. Of some 200 apparel brands that source from Cambodia, Human Rights Watch was in contact with Adidas, Armani, Gap, H&M, Joe Fresh, and Marks and Spencer.
While Cambodian labor law requires overtime work to be voluntary, workers from 48 factories supplying to international brands told Human Rights Watch that it was forced. Factory retaliation in a quarter of these factories included dismissals, wage deductions, and punitive transfers. In February 2015, the Labor Ministry called again for enforcement of factory overtime regulations.
Workers from 35 factories reported anti-union practices including dismissal and intimidation of newly elected union leaders, and shorter-term contracts for men to discourage them from forming or joining unions. Many workers told Human Rights Watch that factory managers pressured them to meet production targets in ways that undermined their ability to take rest breaks, use the washroom, drink water, or eat lunch. In some cases, the pressure to meet production targets increased after minimum wages increased in 2013 and 2014.
Women workers from 30 factories cited specific abuses, including refusing to hire, renew short-term contracts, or provide reasonable accommodation for pregnant workers, making it difficult for them to work in factories. Workers from some factories found it difficult to take medically approved sick leave. Human Rights Watch also documented unlawful child labor in 11 of the factories examined. The worst abuses were reported in smaller subcontractor factories, which produce for larger factories with export licenses.
According to the Labor Ministry, from 2009 through 2013, officials imposed fines on only 10 factories and initiated legal action against 7 factories - all in 2011. While the number of fines jumped to 25 in the first 11 months of 2014, it continues to be abysmally low when compared to the number of factories overall and the persistent patterns of labor rights violations. In 2014, the Labor Ministry began an integrated labor inspection mechanism and improved training. But significant reforms are needed to build credibility given corruption allegations and to improve the inspectorate's track record, Human Rights Watch said.
Since the December 2013 protests by workers for increased minimum wages, the Labor Ministry has introduced burdensome union registration procedures, making it harder for unions to get licenses.
Better Factories Cambodia (BFC) is a third-party monitor mandated to inspect all factories with export licenses and produces factory-specific reports. However Human Rights Watch found that some smaller subcontractor factories without export licenses are excluded from inspections but are supplying indirectly to major brands via larger factories. These smaller factories are where some of the worst working conditions persist. BFC launched a transparency database in 2014 naming 10 low compliance factories. But the transparency database does not include information about brands' engagement with BFC and steps brands take to facilitate labor law compliance in supplier factories.
Following recent wage hikes, which the Garment Manufacturers Association of Cambodia feared would drive apparel brands to "cheaper markets," the International Labour Organization called on apparel brands to "play their part" to absorb a part of the increased costs this will create for factories. Human Rights Watch found that many garment factories used various practices to reduce costs at the expense of workers' rights protected under Cambodian law.
"These international apparel brands need to help labor law compliance by publicly disclosing and regularly updating the names and addresses of their factories," Kashyap said. "Global garment companies can and should monitor and remedy poor working conditions in supplier and subcontractor factories."
Among the six brands with whom Human Rights Watch was in contact, Adidas, Gap, and H&M seriously discussed their efforts to address the problems found. Adidas and H&M also publicly disclose the names of their suppliers and periodically update their lists. Marks and Spencer has committed to disclosing their supplier list in 2016. Only Adidas has created a process for workers to seek whistleblower protection.
Independent union leaders from the Coalition of Cambodian Apparel Workers Democratic Union (CCAWDU), the Cambodian Alliance of Trade Unions (CATU), the National Independent Federation of Textile Unions in Cambodia (NIFTUC), the Collective Union of Movement of Workers (CUMW), and other labor rights activists from the Community Legal Education Center (CLEC) and Workers Information Centre (WIC) have been at the forefront of highlighting labor rights problems in factories and helping workers assert their rights.
Human Rights Watch called on the government to revamp its labor inspections and systematically hold factories accountable for abuses. Apparel brands should take more effective measures to prevent and correct labor rights abuses in the factories that produce for them.
"Apparel brands committed to their workers should encourage better monitoring and protection by publicly disclosing their suppliers," Kashyap said. "All brands should factor in the cost of labor, health, and safety compliance in their contracts to best ensure these rights are respected in the factories."
Human Rights Watch is one of the world's leading independent organizations dedicated to defending and protecting human rights. By focusing international attention where human rights are violated, we give voice to the oppressed and hold oppressors accountable for their crimes. Our rigorous, objective investigations and strategic, targeted advocacy build intense pressure for action and raise the cost of human rights abuse. For 30 years, Human Rights Watch has worked tenaciously to lay the legal and moral groundwork for deep-rooted change and has fought to bring greater justice and security to people around the world.
"Mifepristone is safe and effective, and women should be able to get abortion medication through the mail or telehealth if they need," said Sen. Patty Murray.
Defenders of reproductive rights, including key Democrats in Congress, reiterated the safety of mifepristone on Monday after the US Supreme Court temporarily extended access to the medication—commonly used in abortion and miscarriage care—by mail while the justices review a ruling from a notoriously right-wing appellate court.
The US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit blocked a federal rule allowing mifepristone to be dispensed by mail at the beginning of the month. Drugmakers quickly appealed to the high court, where Justice Samuel Alito, who is part of the right-wing supermajority, issued a one-week stay to give himself and colleagues time to review the case.
As Alito's initial Monday evening deadline approached, he extended the stay until 5:00 pm ET on Thursday. The move means that "for now, mifepristone is still available via telehealth, mail order, and pharmacy while the case proceeds," noted the Democratic Women's Caucus in the US House of Representatives.
However, pro-choice advocates and policymakers are still sounding the alarm and arguing that, as the caucus put it in a social media post, "reproductive freedom should not depend on emergency rulings or political attacks."
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said in a statement that "mifepristone has been safe, effective, and trusted for decades. Today's order keeps access in place for now, but it's not cause for celebration—it's a reminder that basic reproductive care is still under attack every day. Anti-abortion extremists are trying to use the courts to roll back access to medication abortion nationwide, and Senate Dems will keep fighting to protect women's freedom to make their own healthcare decisions."
Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) similarly wrote on social media: "Another extension, but this shouldn't be complicated. Mifepristone is safe and effective, and women should be able to get abortion medication through the mail or telehealth if they need. Extremist judges shouldn't get to decide how women get healthcare."
This case traces back to early 2023, when the Biden administration's Food and Drug Administration permanently lifted mifepristone's in-person dispensing requirement, just months after the Supreme Court's right-wing supermajority overturned Roe v. Wade. Louisiana, which has among the most restrictive abortion policies in the country, sued over the FDA's policy change.
Medication abortions account for the majority of abortions provided in the United States, and those patients generally take both mifepristone and another drug, misoprostol. Demand for abortion pills by mail increased after Roe's reversal, as advocates of forced pregnancy policies in Republican-controlled states ramped up attacks on reproductive freedom.
"With the Supreme Court punting a decision on access to mifepristone—a safe, effective medication used in abortion care—until later this week, patients and providers are left facing continued uncertainty," said Rachel Fey, interim co-CEO of Power to Decide. "Wondering day by day whether you'll have access to an essential medication is not practical, and the confusion only deepens the barriers people already face when seeking abortion care."
"Access to mifepristone should be based on scientific evidence, not ideology," Fey declared. "We urge the Supreme Court to follow that science and maintain current telehealth access to mifepristone—not just for a few days at a time, but permanently."
Alito's extensions in recent days are not necessarily signals of where the conservative will ultimately come down. The Associated Press pointed out Monday that "the current dispute is similar to one that reached the court three years ago," when the justices blocked another 5th Circuit ruling "over the dissenting votes of Alito and Justice Clarence Thomas," and then unanimously dismissed that case due to lack of standing, or a legal right to sue.
The battle comes as the Trump administration's FDA is conducting a review of mifepristone that Julia Kaye, senior staff attorney for the ACLU’s Reproductive Freedom Project, has said seems "designed to manufacture an excuse for further restricting medication abortion across the country."
The New York Times noted Monday that US Department of Justice "lawyers have not said in court proceedings or publicly whether they back regulations that allow people to be prescribed the pills through telehealth appointments. Instead, they have asked the lower courts to pause the litigation to give the FDA time to complete a review of the safety of mifepristone, which was first approved in 2000."
"Boy, it's a complete mystery why the public thinks the court is making partisan political decisions," quipped one law professor following the ruling on Alabama's redistricting.
The US Supreme Court's right-wing majority Monday opened the door for Alabama to eliminate a majority-Black congressional district before this year's midterm elections in a decision that came as Tennessee voters sued to stop their state's racially rigged redistricting.
The nation's high court issued a 6-3 order with no explanation allowing Alabama officials to revert to a congressional map which, despite the state population being roughly 26% African American, has just one majority-Black district out of seven. The order came just a week before Alabama's primary election and less than three years after the same court ordered the state to create a second majority-Black district.
In that case, Allen v. Milligan, two right-wing members—Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh—joined their liberal colleagues who sided with Black voters in defense of the Voting Rights Act.
SCOTUS, which ordered Alabama to create a second Black opportunity district just 3 years ago, has lifted that order a week before the primary. The Purcell principle says courts shouldn't permit chaos too close to an election—it's now an open question whether there will even be a primary on schedule.
[image or embed]
— Joyce White Vance (@joycewhitevance.bsky.social) May 11, 2026 at 3:32 PM
Monday's ruling follows last month's Louisiana v. Callais decision, in which the justices ruled 6-3, also along ideological lines, that Louisiana's congressional map is “an unconstitutional racial gerrymander."
The decision ironically voided the last remaining provision of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which allows voters of color to challenge racially discriminatory electoral maps in court.
Dissenting in Monday's decision, liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted that the high court previously found that "Alabama violated the 14th Amendment by intentionally diluting the votes of Black voters."
"That constitutional finding of intentional discrimination is independent of, and unaffected by, any of the legal issues discussed in Callais," she added.
Earlier on Monday, the ACLU and ACLU of Tennessee filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of three Black voters, the Black Clergy Collaborative of Memphis, the Memphis A. Philip Randolph Institute, and the Equity Alliance seeking to block the state's racially rigged congressional map approved last week by the state Legislature and signed into law by Republican Gov. Bill Lee despite tremendous opposition from African American Tennesseans and their allies.
The lawsuit argues that the new map violates the Constitution by intentionally discriminating against Black voters in Memphis and retaliates against them for exercising their First Amendment right to political expression and association.
As the ACLU of Tennessee explained:
Tennessee has had a Memphis-based congressional district for the better part of a century. The challenged map dismantles that district, which is the state’s only majority-Black congressional district. It divides Black voters in Memphis and Shelby County across three majority-white districts that stretch from Memphis hundreds of miles into central Tennessee, diluting Black Memphians’ votes and stripping those communities of any meaningful voice in Congress...
A white-controlled supermajority of the Tennessee General Assembly enacted the new map targeting Black Memphians over mere days in a special legislative session that had been called after the candidate-qualifying deadline had already run.
"Black voters in Memphis did exactly what the Constitution empowers every American to do, which is to choose their representative,” ACLU of Tennessee executive director Miriar Nemeth said in a statement. “The Legislature’s response was an effort to ensure that those votes never carry the same weight again. The law has a name for this, and it’s not redistricting, it is textbook First Amendment retaliation. And it is, at its heart, racism.”
The Tennessee branch of the NAACP, state Democratic Party, Democratic candidates, and voters have also sued to challenge the redistricting.
The current partisan redistricting war began when President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans, who fear losing control of Congress after November's midterms, pushed Texas to enact a mid-decade redistricting. California retaliated with its own voter-approved redraw, and numerous red and blue states have followed suit or announced plans to at least consider doing so.
On Monday, Virginia's Democratic attorney general and party legislative leaders asked the US Supreme Court to block a state high court ruling against a voter-approved redistricting that favors Democrats.
Last week, Roberts dismissed the increasingly prevalent public perception that Supreme Court justices are "political actors."
Chief Justice Roberts bemoans the public's view of the Justices as political actors ...and then offers no explanation at all as the Court sprints to vacate a finding of INTENTIONAL discrimination, interfering with an impending election to let Alabama Rs sneak in a touch more partisan gerrymander.
[image or embed]
— Justin Levitt (@justinlevitt.bsky.social) May 11, 2026 at 3:21 PM
Following Monday's ruling, Loyola Law School professor Justin Levitt said sardonically on Bluesky, "Boy, it's a complete mystery why the public thinks the court is making partisan political decisions."
"The irreparable harm resulting from the Supreme Court of Virginia's decision is profound and immediate," top state Democrats said of the decision that struck down the new districts.
Virginia Attorney General Jay Jones and Democratic leaders in the state General Assembly on Monday asked the US Supreme Court to block a ruling against a ballot measure establishing new voter-approved congressional districts that favored Democrats.
The Virginia Supreme Court on Friday delivered a blow to the Democratic battle against President Donald Trump's gerrymandering campaign when it struck down a political map that Virginians had narrowly backed last month. The new districts could help Democrats secure up to four seats in the US House of Representatives in the November midterm elections.
Jones, Speaker of the Virginia House of Delegates Don Scott (D-88), state Senate Majority Leader Scott Surovell (D-34), and Senate President Pro Tempore L. Louise Lucas (D-18) are seeking a stay, arguing that based on a "novel and manifestly atextual interpretation" of the Virginia Constitution, the state Supreme Court "overrode the will of the people who ratified the amendment by ordering the commonwealth to conduct its election with the congressional districts that the people rejected."
"A stay is warranted because the decision by the Supreme Court of Virginia is deeply mistaken on two critical issues of federal law with profound practical importance to the nation. The decision below violates federal law in two separate ways," the emergency application says. "First, it predicated its interpretation of the Virginia Constitution on a grave misreading of federal law, which expressly fixes a single day for the 'election' of representatives and delegates to Congress."
"Second, by rejecting the plain text of the Virginia Constitution's definition of the term 'election' to adopt its own contrary meaning, the Supreme Court of Virginia 'transgressed the ordinary bounds of judicial review such that it arrogated to itself the power vested in the state legislature to regulate federal elections,'" the application continues.
The filing also stresses that "the irreparable harm resulting from the Supreme Court of Virginia's decision is profound and immediate. By forcing the commonwealth to conduct its congressional elections using districts different from those adopted by the General Assembly pursuant to a constitutional amendment the people just ratified, the Supreme Court of Virginia has deprived voters, candidates, and the commonwealth of their right to the lawfully enacted congressional districts."
The Associated Press noted that "Democrats are taking a legal long shot in asking the justices to reverse the Virginia ruling. The Supreme Court tries to avoid second-guessing state courts’ interpretations of their own constitutions. In 2023, it turned down a request by North Carolina Republicans to overrule a state Supreme Court decision that blocked the GOP's congressional map."
The high court also has a right-wing supermajority that includes three Trump appointees—and which gutted the remnants of the Voting Rights Act in a ruling related to Louisiana's congressional districts late last month.
Under current conditions, Republicans are expected to pick up seats in Florida, Missouri, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas due to redistricting demanded by Trump, while Democrats are expected to win more districts in California, where voters also approved new political lines benefiting them.
The Washington Post reported Monday that "some top Democrats express little hope that the appeal will affect this November's congressional midterms and are pivoting to waging campaigns in the state's existing districts."
According to the newspaper:
Surovell (D-Fairfax) said "the practical realities of our election calendar" will prevent candidates from running in new maps even if conservative justices on the US Supreme Court were open to helping Virginia Democrats.
Tuesday is the deadline set by state elections officials for putting the ballot mechanisms in place. Surovell noted that Virginia’s elections software is antiquated and overdue for replacement.
Instead, Democrats are making the case that it’s time to work with the cards they have in hand.
"Since we can't control anything other than mobilizing and organizing, then let's mobilize and organize and turn our anger into fuel for that," Rep. Jennifer McClellan (D-Va.) said.
In a Monday letter to fellow congressional Democrats, US House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (NY) called out the "vicious Republican assault on the right to vote, free and fair elections, and Black political representation in the South," and pledged that "our effort to forcefully push back against the Republican redistricting scheme will not slow down."
Jeffries also announced a caucus-wide briefing planned for Thursday "to discuss the steps Democrats are taking to advance the largest voter protection effort in modern American history," and declared that "Democrats will take control of the House of Representatives in November."