UC Issues Tough Code for Suppliers of Apparel, Goods

Under pressure from student activists, the University of California system Friday issued a code of conduct among the toughest in the nation for manufacturers who make clothing and other goods with the UC name or logo.

The code contains several provisions that have been fiercely resisted by the apparel industry, including full disclosure of all factory locations and the guarantee of a “living wage” to all workers. Also included were guarantees of freedom to join a union and equal rights for women.

“I’m ecstatic,” said UC Berkeley senior Jeremy Blasi, a member of the coordinating committee of United Students Against Sweatshops, a 2-year-old group with chapters on more than 200 campuses nationwide. “This might be the toughest code in the country, and it definitely has the largest reach. I don’t believe there is any other that pertains to so much money, so many products and so many campuses.”

About 50 universities nationwide, including Harvard and the University of Michigan, have issued codes of conduct, but very few include provisions for a living wage. That would set a wage floor--likely far more than the government-set minimum--that would be considered sufficient to cover housing, food and other basic expenses.

Sales of UC products total about $17 million a year, with more than $10 million of that in royalties and profits, said Mary Spletter, spokeswoman for UC President Richard C. Atkinson. More than 50 companies are involved in the manufacture of those goods, at factories in the United States and scores of other countries. Spletter said the university for now is focusing on the 25 top manufacturers, which already have been contacted.

Atkinson announced the new code, which is effective immediately, in a letter Friday to chancellors of the 10 UC campuses. As annual contracts are renewed, all licensees will have to agree to abide by the code, and contracts will be dropped if violations are found, Spletter said.

The UC system issued a much weaker code in the summer of 1998, as the national student movement was just gathering momentum. Strong criticism and demonstrations led to the creation of an advisory committee, with student, faculty and administrative members, which hammered out the current code over the past year.

“I am pleased that UC has one of the strongest codes in support of humane labor standards,” Atkinson said in his letter.

The code still has no monitoring and enforcement mechanism, although Atkinson said the UC system has joined Harvard and other schools in a study of possible approaches.

Students are pushing for an enforcement mechanism that relies on worker rights groups where garments are produced, and tips from workers themselves. “There’s great promise for this code to be an effective tool. If it is enforced with vigilance, it can really improve the lives of many workers,” said Blasi.

Medea Benjamin, executive director of Global Exchange, a San Francisco human rights group involved in garment worker issues, said student activism, including a wave of sit-ins, teach-ins and boisterous rallies, has already changed the discussion with clothing manufacturers.

“Disclosure has been the main success so far of the student movement, and that affects the entire industry,” she said. “Companies like Nike are now agreeing to give out factory locations, where just a year ago they were telling us they’ll never release that information. Our next step is to push the UC system to adopt a creative and effective monitoring plan.”

Students from 50 universities are gathering at the University of Michigan this weekend for a “vision-setting conference” to discuss future strategies.