March, 13 2015, 01:30pm EDT
Cambodia: Labor Laws Fail to Protect Garment Workers
PHNOM PENH
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.
LATEST NEWS
New Jersey Governor Signs Freedom to Read Act Barring Book Bans
The law, said the Democrat, "cements New Jersey's role on the forefront of preventing book bans and protecting the intellectual freedom of our educators and students."
Dec 09, 2024
Democratic New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy on Monday signed legislation protecting librarians and prohibiting public schools and libraries from banning books—a move that came as Republican state lawmakers are proscribing a record number of titles, many of them works addressing sexual orientation, gender identity, and racial injustice.
Flanked by educators, librarians, and other advocates, Murphy signed
A.3446/S.2421—known as the Freedom to Read Act—in the Princeton Public Library.
"The Freedom to Read Act cements New Jersey's role on the forefront of preventing book bans and protecting the intellectual freedom of our educators and students," said Murphy. "Across the nation, we have seen attempts to suppress and censor the stories and experiences of others. I'm proud to amplify the voices of our past and present, as there is no better way for our children to prepare for the future than to read freely."
According to a statement from Murphy's office:
Under the law, boards of education and governing boards of public libraries are barred from excluding books because of the origin, background, or views of the material or of its authors. Further, boards of education and governing boards of public libraries are prevented from censoring library material based on a disagreement with a viewpoint, idea, or concept, or solely because an individual finds certain content offensive, unless they are restricting access to developmentally inappropriate material for certain age groups.
The legislation "also provides protections for library staff members against civil and criminal lawsuits related to complying with this law."
New Jersey Association of School Librarians President Karen Grant said that "the Freedom to Read Act recognizes the professionalism, honor, work ethics, and performance of school and public library staff" and "promotes libraries as trusted sources of information and recognizes the many roles that libraries play in students' lives."
"The bill will protect the intellectual freedom of students as well as acknowledge that school libraries are centers for voluntary inquiry, fostering students' growth and development," Grant added. "Additionally, we are grateful for the broad coalition of support from so many organizations for this legislation."
The leader of one of those groups—Garden State Equality executive director Christian Fuscarino—said, "Gov. Murphy just made it clear: In New Jersey, censorship loses, and freedom wins."
"At a time when access to diverse and inclusive materials is under attack across the nation, this legislation sends a powerful message that New Jersey will stand firm in protecting intellectual freedom and fostering a culture of understanding and inclusion," Fuscarino added.
The New Jersey law comes amid a near-tripling in the number of books banned or challenged by Republican state lawmakers and right-wing organizations over the past year, with PEN America counting over 10,000 such titles during the 2023-24 academic year—up from 3,362 titles during the previous scholastic year.
With Murphy's signature, New Jersey joins Minnesota and Illinois in passing state legislation to counter GOP book-banning efforts.
As the Chicago Tribunereported Sunday, "a number of school districts, many of them in deeply conservative areas of south and central Illinois," are giving up state grants rather than adopting principles against book-banning."Keep ReadingShow Less
'Completely Un-American': Progressives Slam Trump Plan to End Birthright Citizenship
"Emboldened by a Supreme Court that would use its power to uphold white supremacy rather than the constitution of our nation, Trump is on a mission to weaken the very soul of our nation," said Rep. Delia Ramirez.
Dec 09, 2024
Progressives in Congress and other migrant rights advocates sharply criticized U.S. President-elect Donald Trump for his comments on immigration during a Sunday interview, including on his hopes to end birthright citizenship.
During a 76-minute interview with NBC News' Kristen Welker, Trump said he "absolutely" intends to end birthright citizenship, potentially through executive order, despite the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Among many lies the Republican told, he also falsely claimed that the United States is the only country to offer citizenship by birth; in fact, there are dozens.
In response,
outgoing Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) said on social media Monday: "This is completely un-American. The 14th Amendment guarantees birthright citizenship. Trump cannot unilaterally end it, and any attempt to do so would be both unconstitutional and immoral."
Congresswoman Gwen Moore (D-Wis.) similarly stressed that "birthright citizenship is enshrined in the Constitution as a cornerstone of American ideals. It reflects our belief that America is the land of opportunity. Sadly, this is just another in the long line of Trump's assault on the U.S. Constitution."
Rep. Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.), the daughter of Guatemalan immigrants, said in a statement: "'Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.' It is important to remember who we are, where many of us came from, and why many of our families traveled here to be greeted by the Mother of Exiles, the Statue of Liberty."
Ramirez argued that "the story of our nation wouldn't be complete without the sweat, tears, joy, dreams, and hopes of so many children of immigrants who are citizens by birthright and pride themselves on being AMERICANS. It is the story of so many IL-03 communities, strengthened by the immigration of people from Poland, Ukraine, Italy, Mexico, and Guatemala, among others. It is the story of many members of Congress who can point to the citizenship of their forebears and ancestors because of immigration and birthright."
"Let's be clear: Trump is posing the question of who gets to be an American to our nation. And given that today's migrants are from Africa, Asia, the Caribbean, and Latin and Central America, it is clear he is questioning who are the 'right' people to benefit from birthright citizenship," she continued. "Questioning birthright citizenship is anti-American, and eliminating it through executive action is unconstitutional. Donald Trump knows that."
"But emboldened by a Supreme Court that would use its power to uphold white supremacy rather than the Constitution of our nation, Trump is on a mission to weaken the very soul of our nation," she warned. "I—like many sons and daughters of immigrants and first-generation Americans—believe in and fight for a land of freedom, opportunities, and equality. To live into that promise, we must stand against white nationalism—especially when it is espoused at the highest levels of government."
Although Republicans are set to control both the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives next year, amending the Constitution requires support from two-thirds of both chambers of Congress and three-fourths of the state legislatures, meaning that process is unlikely to be attempted for this policy.
Rep. Adriano Espaillat (D-N.Y.) highlighted the difficulties of passing constitutional amendments while discussing Trump in a Monday appearance on CNN. The incoming chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus was born in the Dominican Republic and is the first formerly undocumented immigrant elected to Congress.
As Mother Jones reporter Isabela Dias detailed Monday:
Critics of ending birthright citizenship for the U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants argue it would not only constitute bad policy, but also a betrayal of American values and, as one scholar put it to me, a "prelude" to mass deportation.
"It's really 100 years of accepted interpretation," Hiroshi Motomura, a scholar of immigration and citizenship at UCLA's law school, told me of birthright citizenship. Ending birthright citizenship would cut at the core of the hard-fought assurance of equal treatment under the law, he said, "basically drawing a line between two kinds of American citizens."
Trump's NBC interview also addressed his long-promised mass deportations. The president-elect—whose first administration was globally condemned for separating migrant families at the southern border and second administration is already filling up with hard-liners—suggested Sunday that he would deport children who are U.S. citizens with undocumented parents.
"I don't want to be breaking up families, so the only way you don't break up the family is you keep them together and you have to send them all back," Trump told Welker.
Responding in a Monday statement, America's Voice executive director Vanessa Cárdenas said, "There's a growing consensus that the Trump mass deportation agenda will hit American consumers and industries hard, but the scope of what Trump and his team are proposing goes well beyond the economic impact."
"Trump and allies are making clear their mass deportation agenda will include deporting U.S. citizens, including children, while aiming to gut a century and a half of legal and moral precedent on birthright citizenship," she added. "In total, their attacks go well beyond the narrow lens of immigration to the fundamental question of who gets to be an American."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Green, Indigenous Groups Warns Arctic Still at Grave Drilling Risk When Trump Returns
"Drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is all risk with no reward," said one advocate.
Dec 09, 2024
Wildlife protection groups and Indigenous leaders in Alaska said Monday that they would push to discourage bidding in an oil and gas lease sale just announced by the U.S. Interior Department for part of the Arctc National Wildlife Refuge.
Under the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which opened the refuge for oil and gas drilling, the Biden administration announced the second of two lease sales, set to be held on January 9, 2025.
The first Trump administration held the initial lease sale in 2021, but with banks and insurance companies increasingly reticent to back drilling projects in the area, it generated little interest and led to less than 1% of the projected sale revenue.
Releasing its final record of decision, the Interior Department said Monday that 400,000 acres of wilderness in the refuge's 1.6-million-acre northwest Coastal Plain would be put up for bidding at a minimum price of $30 per acre—despite vocal opposition from the Gwich'in Nation and the Iñupiat Alaska Natives.
The land supports local communities as well as porcupine caribou herds and polar bears.
"Our way of life, our food security, and our spiritual well-being is directly tied to the health of the caribou and the health of this irreplaceable landscape," Kristen Moreland, executive director of Gwich'in Steering Committee, toldBloomberg News. "Every oil company stayed away from the first lease sale, and we expect them to do the same during the second."
The record of decision concludes the Bureau of Land Management's process for developing a supplemental environmental impact statement, which was required after President-elect Donald Trump's first administration completed an analysis with "fundamental flaws and legal errors," as the Sierra Club said Monday.
Selling the drilling rights just before Trump takes office could complicate the GOP's plans to hold a more expansive sale later on, but Dan Ritzman, director of Sierra Club's Conservation Campaign, emphasized that regardless of who is in office when the sale takes place, "oil and gas development in the Arctic Refuge is a direct threat to some of the last untouched landscapes on Alaska's North Slope and to the caribou herds that the Gwich'in people rely on."
"The 2017 tax act, forced through Congress by Donald Trump and his Big Oil CEO allies, opened up the Coastal Plain to oil and gas leasing," said Ritzman. "Letting him oversee a lease sale over these pristine lands would be beyond irresponsible. In the meantime, President [Joe] Biden should listen to the Gwich'in and do all that he can to preserve these lands and waters. His legacy is on the line."
Erik Grafe, an attorney at environmental law firm Earthjustice, said the group is "committed to going to court as often as necessary to defend the Arctic Refuge from oil drilling and will work toward a more sustainable future that does not depend on ever-expanding oil extraction."
"Drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is all risk with no reward," said Grafe. "Oil drilling would destroy this beautiful land, held sacred by Gwich'in people, and would further destabilize the global climate, but it offers zero benefit to taxpayers or consumers."
Defenders of Wildlife called on Congress to repeal the 2017 tax law's mandate for leasing sales in the "iconic American landscape" of the Arctic Refuge.
"Turning the coastal plain into an oilfield will obliterate the pristine wilderness of the Arctic Refuge," said Nicole Whittington-Evans, Alaska senior program director for the group, "directly threatening the future of the Porcupine caribou herd and the physical, cultural, and spiritual existence of the Gwich'in people who depend on them."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular