Open Letter Regarding the WORKER RIGHTS CONSORTIUM

Out of the depth of my personal experiences, both as a child growing up in a "second" if not third-world country in South America and as a young man serving as a Peace Corps volunteer in the Marshall Islands (Micronesia), I am moved to urge the University Senate to endorse the student-led effort to join the Worker Rights Consortium. I regret that it has taken students primarily, rather than faculty and administrators, to come to terms with the exploitation of workers, particularly in the poorest nations, so we in the USA can enjoy cheaper goods (thereby adding further to our heedless consumption) while also benefiting from powerful corporations whose profit margins, because of their parsimonious dealings with third-world workers, are so large that they can easily afford (partly out of genuine generosity and partly for commercial gain) to outfit teams free with their products and support a variety of sorely needed projects on our campuses.

The current target of the WRC is athletic wear, but the issue really involves many other products as well. Ideally, we should not be concerned with one part of the problem, but the one currently under examination is a good starting point, for we can more easily give up on logo-bearing T-shirts and hats than other products that are central to academic operations. In time, I would hope that we can look at the problem in a more comprehensive way.

I urge the Senate to do two things: 1) to recommend joining the Worker Rights Consortium, and 2) to specify (even if we don't join) that ALL athletic gear bearing the UO logo and worn by UO teams, either with or without the logo, should be manufactured by companies that adhere to the labor principles and practices set forth by the Worker Rights Consortium.

Over the last decades, universities have tried to address many of America's societal problems. We have dealt with such issues as racial and gender inequality, sexual harassment, intolerance toward gays and lesbians, etc. (to be sure, with varying degrees of intensity and success, but at least we have made the attempt). But it is now time for us also to look beyond our own borders, and recognize that in countless ways we are benefiting from those who labor in conditions that are repugnant to the values we hold dear and which should be as much an issue for us as the ones just mentioned.

Comments and observations:

Some students have voiced objections to the goals of the Worker Rights Consortium. I am referring here to a student quoted in today's Register-Guard: "They try to argue that workers are not getting enough benefit, but I believe they are choosing to work." Of course they are choosing to work, but often there is not much of a choice, yet there are mouths to feed, so you do whatever is available, however hard and inhumane it might be. Is it fair and just that some people should earn incredibly little and work in terrible conditions just to keep us Americans living OUR MORE THAN COMFORTATBLE LIFE STYLE? I doubt the student quoted above knows how good even the poor people in this country have it in comparison with the indigent in many other nations of this world. The differences are startling and frightening, and we in the USA have the wherewithal to give up a little in order to begin leveling the playing field. The same student goes on to say: "The companies that start factories overseas are helping to provide capital that those countries need and that raises the standard of living for everyone there." He then continues that foreign company employed workers "compared with other people in their own countries·have it the same or better." It may be true that many companies, even the ones headquartered in our state, do provide needed jobs in foreign countries and may even pay better than the normal local wage, but given the profits these corporations earn and the amount of money they can give away here at home, why can't they be more generous in spreading the wealth by simply raising the wages of their foreign workers? So what if this forces other companies to raise wages? Yes, all of us in the first world might then find buying a T-shirt or a pair of shoes more expensive, but we can well afford the extra cost, and chances are that we probably don't really need a second or third pair of these items, and so there is often no real urgency to our purchases. If we had to pay more we would perhaps learn to live with what we truly really need. Some have to do with less than they need. I also have trouble with the above student's view that bringing factories and investments to foreign countries "raises the standard of living for everyone there." In principle this is true, but it is surprising how little it benefits the worker who makes a given product. On the other hand, government officials and corporate executives do seem to reap great rewards. Investments alone don't solve the problems of the poor, hence the need for a group that monitors worker rights and conditions.

I don't believe that I'm a radical or a socialist. I'm not against capitalism for it has done many good things, as evident by the material prosperity we enjoy in this country, even allowing our universities the luxury of spending millions on non-academic programs. But, does capitalism need to be so greedy? Is it in the nature of what capitalism is about? Perhaps. In any case, I believe we should aim at a capitalism with a social conscience. We in the USA are rich enough already and can well afford to be less self-indulgent. None of us realize how much we have, even here at the University of Oregon with our meager state support and low salaries. There are some many universities in other countries with far less.

Richard A. Sundt Associate Professor Department of Art History University of Oregon Eugene, OR 97403-5229 USA Telephone 541-346-4698 FAX 541-346-3626 email: rsundt@oregon.uoregon.edu