Agreement on Sweatshops

In defending the Apparel Industry Partnership (Commentary, Nov. 16), Kevin Sweeney asks us to believe that it will do everything necessary to eliminate sweatshops except require companies to eventually pay a living wage to their workers. In one of the few areas of the AIP that would definitely cost companies some money, Sweeney claims that it is not their responsibility. He also fails to explain how a company can produce its goods in countries where workers are jailed and even killed for organizing unions and still claim it is in compliance with a code that includes the right to free association and collective bargaining.

This is not an encouraging start for a plan that will give huge multinational corporations a clean bill of health based on factory inspections--conducted by monitors selected and paid by the companies themselves--of as few as 5% of their worldwide production facilities.

All the labor and religious members of the AIP opposed this recent agreement for many reasons. UNITE (Union of Needletrades, Industrial and Textile Employees, AFL-CIO, CLC) believes it promises much more than it can possibly deliver. It may be useful for companies vehemently opposed to legislation that would restrict abusive labor practices and looking for protection against public criticism. But if the AIP succeeds in diverting public attention from getting new laws passed and seeing that those on the books are enforced, it will hurt more workers than it helps and certainly won’t eliminate sweatshops.

ALAN HOWARD

Assistant to

the President

UNITE, New York