LINDA F. GOLODNER, PRESIDENT
NATIONAL CONSUMERS LEAGUE
University of Kentucky
Labor Management Center
JANUARY 21, 1998
 

I would like to preface my comments with a short video on child labor. The video was developed by the Child Labor Coalition for the Rugmark Campaign. Rugmark offers the first child labor-free label in the marketplace for handknotted carpets from South Asia. Let's look at the faces of child labor.

Child Labor: A Global Problem

Child labor is a global issue. According to a 1997 report by the International Labor Organization, more than 250 million children between the ages of five and fourteen are child laborers in more than 100 countries. To get a handle on this figure, let's consider the population of the United States. 250 million child workers equals the entire population of the United States excluding New York State. Every man, woman, and child in the U.S. represents one working child.

Ninety-five percent of all child workers live in developing countries. In some regions, as many as 25 percent of children between the ages of 10 and 14 are working. The Department of State's 1991 and 1992 Human Rights Reports and a 1992 ILO report attest to the growing numbers of children in servitude and their worsening conditions of work.

The problem of child labor has grown along with the expansion of the global marketplace. Child labor is cheap labor. Children are targeted for non-skilled, labor intensive work. Child workers are docile and easily controlled. Employers have no fear of children demanding rights or organizing.

Child labor creates a climate where many children support their unemployed parents. The family and future generations remain in poverty and exploitation.

Child labor flourishes under many conditions -- cultural traditions; prejudice and discrimination based on gender, ethnic, religious or racial issues; unavailability of educational programs; and no or weak enforcement of compulsory education and child labor laws. Globalization is strengthening child labor through providing ready access to areas of cheap labor that are rife with the above described conditions. Child labor increasingly offers an attractive incentive to keep labor costs down in a highly competitive global market.

Let's not forget the United States. A Rutgers University labor economist recently estimated that more than 290,000 children were employed unlawfully last year in the United States. The survey said that employers saved $155 million in wages last year by hiring underage workers alone. Where is the child labor?

There's mainstream child labor. The kind that is readily seen in the nation's retail stores, fast food outlets, and restaurants. Is the work harmful? Well, it can be and often is harmful. Studies conducted by educators and health experts show that many minors are working too many hours and are engaged in dangerous work. The latest figures on occupational injury to working minors estimate 200,000 injuries per year and more than 100 deaths.

One child labor issue is consistently overlooked. Children who work as migrant and seasonal farmworkers in the United States number as many as 800,000. In 1991, the National Association of Community Health Centers reported that 38 percent of farmworkers consist of women and children under the age of 14.

Part of the problem is that our child labor laws do not adequately protect these children. Consider these facts. Children as young as 10 years old may work in fields legally while the minimum age for work in other occupations is 14. A child farmworker may work over 40 hours a week (even during the school term) while no other child can. A migrant farmworker child can work unlimited hours in agriculture before school. No other child can.

What is the impact on the lives of farmworker children? The rate of school enrollment for farmworker children is lower than for any other group in the U.S. The dropout rate for migrant children is 45 percent. The highest of any group in the United States. Children are exposed to hazardous pesticides while their bodies are developing and maturing which has lifelong repercussions on their health.

Child labor is also a state and community problem. Our communities often do not provide safe employment for our youth. Let's look at Kentucky.

Kentucky law is generally consistent with the federal child labor laws in areas of minimum age for employment and hours of work. According to our most recent survey of state labor departments, Kentucky lags behind other states in resources devoted to child labor enforcement. Kentucky reported a total of only 20 personnel, responsible for enforcing all of Kentucky's labor laws, including child labor. Kentucky has no personnel devoted exclusively for child labor enforcement.

In 1996, the labor department conducted 273 inspections of workplaces. Consider that Kentucky has more than 85,000 business establishments. No data was given on how many of the 273 inspections found child labor violations, although we were told that 617 minors were found illegally employed in the state in 1996. A total of $74,900 in civil money penalties were assessed and collected in 1996 for child labor violations. Comparing these figures to that of other states, Kentucky lags behind in protecting its working minors.

Kentucky has set no minimum age for children working as migrant and seasonal farmworkers. Moreover, the state did not respond to our question on the number of inspections conducted in agriculture for child labor compliance, which probably means that there were not any inspections.

There is no doubt that concerned citizens and government officials in any community in this state could find children working at risk.

Now that we have had an overview of the problem, let's discuss a response to the problem.

The global marketplace has emerged and companies are increasingly entering the transnational playing field. The consumers movement has responded with increased action and awareness outside of its own national borders to consider social responsibility on a global level. The National Consumers League has spurred consumer action on this issue for 98 years.

Consumers who are educated about exploitative working conditions and feel a sense of responsibility to act upon this knowledge find frustration in the marketplace. There is little information and labels to help the conscientious consumer identify products made under decent conditions.

In other areas, consumers have been successful in securing desired information about the products they buy. We've seen consumer activism influencing many industries. The results have been new product offerings, new labels, and new packaging. For example: Before the early 1990s, who had ever heard of "environmental-friendly" labeling? Or, "not tested on animal" labeling? These were both an often reluctant industry response to consumer demand. Consumers wanted more nutrition information on packaged foods -- especially detailed fat and saturated fat information -- and they got it.

These examples reinforce the tremendous power that consumers have over industry. The same influence has been and can continue to provide improvements in social issues such as child labor and sweatshop exploitation.

Media and consumer outrage over child labor and sweatshops spurred many companies to action within the last decade. In the early 1990s, industry leaders who developed corporate codes of conduct (primarily targeting their overseas contractors) were Levi Strauss, Reebok, and Liz Claiborne. Other companies followed, each emphasizing its own list of abusive practices that it would not tolerate.

On several levels, the company codes of conduct proved problematic. They fell short of their intentions, and thus lost their credibility among consumers. First, great variation existed between company codes and standards. Inconsistency of definitions for practices such as child labor confused consumers.

Second, despite the introduction of codes of conduct, company implementation has been ill-conceived and ill-executed. Media reports, worker complaints, and persistent consumer concerns have underscored the ineffectiveness of the company monitored codes of conduct. It has become evident that words on paper and even the best intentioned internal monitoring are unreliable and inadequate.

And, finally, there is a definite lack of transparency. Consumers have little guarantee that company codes of conduct are being meaningfully implemented and overseen.

Consumers want an uncomplicated, easy means to identify products made under decent conditions. Consumers see labels as an easy point-of-purchase tool to use in the marketplace. In the last few years, there has been a resurgence in interest for a label that identifies decent labor conditions. Country of origin and Made in USA labeling is an important beginning point. But, such labels do not provide the complete story behind the labor. Consumers want information, guarantees, and a choice in products made under decent conditions.

The most obvious response of the savvy shopper is their burgeoning demand for labels. Consumers wanted more nutrition labeling on food and got it. The ever evident recycling symbol was a response to consumer concerns about environmental issues. Some consumers wanted dolphin safe tuna or products not tested on animals and the affected industries scrambled to provide assurances to consumers.

Whether to educate consumers about nutrition, environmental impact, product testing, or labor conditions, consumers expect labels to be meaningful and honest. A meaningful label for products made under decent labor conditions must delineate precisely what is meant and met by the use of the label. Consumers expect an honest label, where the veracity of the claim is assured through independent evaluation and oversight of the company using the label.

One of the most credible labeling programs is RUGMARK. Actually, it is the only labeling program that is independent of the industry being monitored. RUGMARK certifies carpet manufacturers who meet stringent requirements to assure that no child labor is used in handmade carpets from India and Nepal.

Consumer confidence in the label is gained through systematic independent monitoring and unannounced inspections of manufacturers by RUGMARK inspectors.

An important part of the program is education and rehabilitation of former child workers. There are more than 1,000 children in RUGMARK-supported schools in India and Nepal. These schools are supported through a surcharge paid by importers on the RUGMARK carpets they buy.

RUGMARK carpets represent nearly 15 percent of all Indian production and nearly 70 percent of Nepalese production. Pakistan is developing a RUGMARK program. Rugmark represents the first child labor-free label in the marketplace. It is a model and others are sure to follow.

Last year, President Clinton convened a meeting at the White House, inviting apparel industry leaders, unions, and non-governmental organizations to form a task force on sweatshops. The President charged the group to determine appropriate steps to ensure that apparel is manufactured under decent and humane working conditions. The President also charged the group to develop options to inform consumers that the products they buy are not produced under exploitative conditions.

The National Consumers League and the other Partnership's members have developed an industry code of conduct. The code blends elements of existing corporate codes into a set of standards which may be adopted by the apparel industry as a whole. The code addresses child labor, maximum work weeks, harassment and abuse, forced labor, and other issues. Integral to the code is definitive monitoring, including both internal and independent external evaluations of compliance.

The Partnership is working on forming a permanent association that will provide membership to companies that adopt the code of conduct, as well as setting the parameters of monitoring. It will also standardize and control the use of any symbol, label or other mechanism employed to provide information to the consumer about decent working conditions.

The work of the Apparel Industry Taskforce represents the first effort of U.S. industry to create a meaningful mechanism to ensure that products are made under decent conditions.

Recognizing the advantages of citizen action and the greater responsiveness of local government, a new pressure point has been added to end child labor and sweatshop abuses.

Bangor's Clean Clothes Campaign: A city of nearly 31,000 residents, Bangor, Maine is working toward "sweatshop free" clothing within its city limits. The Clean Clothes Campaign supports the simple principle that clothes sold in our community should not be supplied by manufacturers who violate established international standards regarding forced labor, child labor, poverty wages, and decent working conditions. They accomplished this in 1997 by banning the sale in Bangor of any item of clothing produced in violation of these most basic standards of ethical practice.

The campaign will next build upon the community consensus against sweatshops with a retailer campaign. Retailers will be pressed to take a pledge of corporate and social accountability to the Bangor community. The Clean Clothes Campaign insists that "ordinary people should have something to say about the behavior of businesses, large or small, that operate in our community. We would never permit local vendors to sell us rotten meat, or stolen property, or illicit drugs because such behavior offends our community values. Likewise, we do not condone international corporations supplying our retailers with items made under conditions that equally offend our sense of decency."

In another example, the City Council of Los Angeles approved a resolution in December 1996, requiring the city to only purchase sporting goods that have been certified by a reputable independent organization as having been manufactured without child labor. The resolution has received tremendous support from youth soccer leagues, parents, and schools and has become a model resolution for other cities.

In an Ohio model that is being replicated across the country, the North Olmsted City Council approved an ordinance forbidding the purchase, rent, or lease of goods which have been manufactured under sweatshop conditions. The law refers to the following when determining sweatshop conditions: child labor, forced labor, wages and benefits, hours of work, worker rights, and health and safety. Suppliers must sign a new clause on all contracts and purchase requisitions stating that their products are not made in sweatshops. If the city discovers a supplier does sell sweatshop products, the contract will be canceled or other appropriate action taken.

The RUGMARK label, the AIP Code of Conduct, and city resolutions are all important steps. Also, there are initiatives taken by international bodies to combat child labor, such as the 1998 Global March Against Child Labor. I would like to conclude my remarks by highlighting pending legislation which addresses both domestic and international child labor.

The fight against child labor exploitation had a major success in 1997. The passage of a bill to amend the Trade Act, clarified that the U.S. Customs Service shall ensure that no items made by forced or indentured child labor may be imported into the United States. Customs has yet to respond to the first complaint filed by a member organization of the Child Labor Coalition regarding handknotted carpets from South Asia. Although the law is applauded, we cannot rest until assured that the law will be fully implemented. This is a critical time as Customs and other Administration officials resolve internal questions regarding the definition of child labor and how the law will be enforced.

Meanwhile, another bill has been introduced in this Congress related to imports of products made by children. The Child Labor Free Consumer Information Act of 1997 establishes a voluntary labeling system for wearing apparel and sporting goods made without child labor.

In domestic legislation, a bill called "The Young American Workers' Bill of Rights" was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives this year. This bill would significantly strengthen the child labor provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. It restricts the hours of work while school is in session for 16- and 17-year-olds and further restricts the hours for younger minors. The bill also provides the same protections for farmworker children as for minors engaged in other occupations in the areas of minimum age for employment and hours of work. The Young American Workers' Bill of Rights raises penalties for child labor violations and strengthens federal child labor enforcement.

In conclusion, we can be hopeful because of the initiatives and progress that has been made. Yet, we cannot rest. The problem of child labor is muti-faceted and complex. Even so, there is no excuse for its existence. We must end it and it will take the concerted effort of consumers, business, governments, and advocates working together to eliminate what is known as the world's "dirty little secret."