Women's Views on News |
- Cambodia’s labour laws fail to protect garment workers
- Ask your MP to SetHerFree
- This is what a feminist foreign policy looks like
| Cambodia’s labour laws fail to protect garment workers Posted: 26 Mar 2015 10:01 AM PDT
The Cambodian government is failing to protect garment workers who are producing for international apparel brands from serious labour rights abuses, Human Rights Watch has 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 labour 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 labour 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 labour 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 per cent 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, labour 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 labour 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 Labour 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 labour 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 Labour 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 labour rights violations. In 2014, the Labour Ministry began an integrated labour 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 Labour 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 labour 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 (ILO) 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 labour 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 whistle-blower 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 labour rights activists from the Community Legal Education Center (CLEC) and Workers Information Centre (WIC) have been at the forefront of highlighting labour rights problems in factories and helping workers assert their rights. Human Rights Watch has called on the government to revamp its labour inspections and systematically hold factories accountable for abuses. Apparel brands should take more effective measures to prevent and correct labour 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 labour, health, and safety compliance in their contracts to best ensure these rights are respected in the factories."  |
| Posted: 26 Mar 2015 09:55 AM PDT
Often they don’t understand the reasons behind their imprisonment. These women haven't committed any crime. They have come to the UK seeking refuge. Most of them have survived rape and sexual violence in their home countries – but instead of being given protection here, they are locked up. In detention, refugee women often find that they are guarded by men. For survivors of sexual violence, this can be extremely distressing. Many of the women who are held in detention are on suicide watch. Yet this detention is not necessary; their asylum claims could be considered while they live in the community. With only six weeks until the election, political parties are competing to win votes. With your help, we can use this opportunity to put pressure on parties and help shape what they commit to do in parliament. By asking your MP to take action to end the detention of refugee women, you can help make sure women’s human rights are firmly on the next government's agenda. Email your MP and ask them to take action now. Emailing your MP only takes a couple of minutes. Simply click here, enter your postcode on the page that opens up and click ‘Find your MP’. Help #SetHerFree.  |
| This is what a feminist foreign policy looks like Posted: 26 Mar 2015 09:20 AM PDT
By Madeleine Rees. Margot Wallström's decision not to sell arms to Saudi Arabia demonstrates the fundamental rethink needed to achieve a feminist foreign policy. It may have escaped your notice, but something very significant has happened. It made the news briefly in the European press, not at all in the US, but in Sweden the papers are now in debate. The "significant something" is a particular decision made by Margot Wallström, the Swedish Foreign Minister. How many of us read the papers, listen to the news of what is happening in places like Syria, Iraq, Nigeria or Ukraine and feel disgusted and upset – but also helpless to make a difference? We watch with horror the impact of explosive weapons, like rockets and artillery and mortars and barrel bombs, wielded by all sides in these wars. The use of these explosive weapons in towns and cities brings deaths and injuries to civilians, destruction of their homes, schools and hospitals, and loss of food, water, shelter and sanitation. Do we pause to worry about where these and other weapons come from and how they get into the hands of those who bombard towns and cities, who commit war crimes, or who perpetrate crimes against humanity? Think of this phrase: "crimes against humanity". It describes violent acts, which are so horrific that they denigrate all of us and our common humanity. There are laws against such acts, international laws that States and individuals are supposed to respect. But they do not respect them and we let them get away with it because we are missing something. That missing link is between us as an electorate, our leaders as our State, and the impact of what they do in our name. Margot Wallström just gave back the people of Sweden their humanity, although not all see it that way. And, of course, she is being criticised for it and the nature of that criticism is, inevitably, gendered. If you missed it: she denounced the Saudi authorities for their human rights record and in particular the sentence of 1,000 lashes and flogging of liberal Saudi blogger Raif Badawi. "Mediaeval" she defined it. How many of us have said the same? But she is a Foreign Minister and has authority, so she did not just turn off the radio and walk away. She complied with international law and said no to the cooperation agreement on arms deals with Saudi Arabia – one of the world's worst human rights violators, also to be found in the UK list of such transgressors but with no consequences. Margot Wallström is now being condemned as naïve, emotional and lacking political judgment. Former Foreign Minister Carl Bildt has said that "There is a real risk… [the cancellation] will hit Swedish interests, not only in Saudi Arabia itself." Does he mean that Sweden has an interest in providing weapons that might be used to violate human rights? I think not. He is more likely referring to the money that will be lost to the economy, which is the reason why Sweden made the deal with Saudi Arabia in the first place. Margot Wallström's decision has angered even those who do not seem to have a dog in this fight: Volvo, H&M and the SEB bank group. This illustrates just how close all economy is to the arms trade. As David Crouch wrote on 11 March in the Guardian: ‘The bust-up could also weaken Sweden's chances of re-election to the UN security council next year, which the government has made a strategic foreign policy goal. "No one will listen to Sweden now for many years to come," said Per Jönsson, a Middle East expert at the Institute of Foreign Affairs in Stockholm. ‘Worsening relations with Israel and the Arab world meant Wallström, seen as a star when she took office, was now "becoming an obvious problem", commented Sweden's leading business newspaper, Dagens Industri.’ Am I the only one who sees the comment about the membership of the Security Council as a condemnation of that body? As if, if you play the game of the Permanent 5, you are one of the boys, if you don't, then you don't get to play. The United Nations is ostensibly the world's largest peace organisation. Is this what we want? A world where only those who sell weapons are taken seriously? Where only those who carry and use weapons are to be respected? Where courageous women who denounce violence and extremism become the subject of attack and vilification? How very "mediaeval" – but with men in suits instead of men in cloaks. There is now even more reaction: Saudi Arabia is to deny visas to Swedes. Game theory: a response is expected. That response should be global solidarity with the action taken by Sweden. There are choices that we have to make. We can have foreign policies that give succor to regimes that kill, torture and maim their own citizens, and then pass on the weapons we sell to their protégées in other countries. Or we can choose a fundamental change in the way we do business and demand foreign policies that promote human rights and that refuse to facilitate conflict through the use of more and more violence and militarism. It requires a serious rethink of our understanding of peace and security towards a more holistic approach; the crux of the upcoming major international civil society conference hosted by WILPF [the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom] under the banner Women's Power to Stop War. Our governments represent us: they sell arms in our name, they support rogue regimes in our name, and they claim that by doing so, they are securing our economic wellbeing and our security. Well, they do neither. Our inaction in the face of what we see and read on a daily basis, and on what we allow to be done to others, makes us complicit in the catastrophes that affect ordinary people, just like us, every day. Margot Wallström showed us what can be done when we put principles and human decency above "business as usual." This is what a feminist foreign policy looks like. She needs support and we should let it be known that she has it. Madeleine Rees is Secretary General of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF). She was appointed Officer of the Order of the British Empire (OBE) for services to human rights, particularly women’s rights, and international peace and security. A version of this article appeared in OpenDemocracy on 23 March 2015.  |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Women's Views on News To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States | |