TOC and sample briefs will be posted then. Actually, here… this is our brief against Child Labor cases.

NEG – CHILD LABOR IN INDIA

NEG – CHILD LABOR IN INDIA.. 1

A. Free Market/Private Action Solves. 1

A1. Corporate Codes are better foreign policy than government action. 5

A2. The government is bypassed in the need to regulate. 8

A3. Explanation of Corporate Codes. 10

B. Child Labor in India is Hard to Determine. 11

C. India is combating child labor! 12

D. U.S. Government Action to Combat Child Labor 14

E. Sometimes Child Labor is Okay. 16

Strategy Notes from Isaiah: Against a Child Labor case you walk a fine line because of the immediate moral pathos that the AFF has going for them. Honestly, I’d take Aristotle’s advice in the Rhetoric when he says to dissipate anger/indignation you find a different cause for the problem and show how their perspective is okay to be in anguish, but attack the disease, not the symptom. The alternative causes are poverty and poor governance. This brief has good mitigation since it shows steps are already being taken by India and the U.S. If I were NEG, I’d put most of my eggs in the “Free Market Solves” basket, since it’s very defensible and then you have a good Pro SQ advocacy (which is sort of like running a counterplan) that the judge can vote FOR instead of just voting AGAINST the AFF because of your mitigating arguments. So use your mitigation of the problem to show why your advocacy of free market is even more worth considering.

A. Free Market/Private Action Solves

1. “Rugmark” program is a major private solution to child labor that certifies and labels carpets made without child labor

2. The public is holding corporations to standards of conduct that have enforcement power

3. Example: Gap policed itself

4. Example: Levi Strauss introduced a two-part review process that caused ending of 30 contracts, improvement of many suppliers, and complete pullout from two countries

5. Example: Talk show host organized industry summit and Labor Department’s “Now Sweat” campaign

6. That businesses are made for profit does not necessarily contradict corporate codes, b/c many may find it profitable to conduct ethical business

7. Child labor is decreasing globally, in some large part due to corporate codes

8. Risk of embarrassment is driving companies away from child labor, as it is driving individualism (i.e. free mkt at work)

1. “Rugmark” program is a major private solution to child labor that certifies and labels carpets made without child labor

Dr. Frederick B. Jonassen [Professor of Law, legal historian, J.D., Ph.D., Cornell University, 1983] “A Baby-Step to Global Labor Reform: Corporate Codes of Conduct and the Child” Minnesota Journal of International Law, Winter, 2008, (17 Minn. J. Int’l L. 7)

“To combat the widespread problem of child labor in the carpet industry of south Asia, an Indian child labor activist, Kailash Satyarthi, founded the Rugmark Foundation with the help of the South Asian Coalition on Child Servitude, the Indo-German Promotion Council, UNICEF, and other concerned industry and nongovernment groups. Rugmark is a labeling program. Carpet retailers and manufacturers agree to abide by the Rugmark code of conduct that provides for the replacement of child labor with adult labor and for the education of the children. Signatories pay a licensing fee and are subject to inspection by Rugmark monitors. Those who pass the inspection may attach the Rugmark label to their products, which signifies that the carpet was not produced with child labor. In Germany, which is an import center for carpets from Asia, carpet wholesalers and retailers who agree to buy only Rugmark-certified products are permitted to publicize the fact and use the label. Rugmark also rescues children from exploitative labor situations and places them in schools. The movement has been successful in Germany and is gaining popularity in the United States.”

2. The public is holding corporations to standards of conduct that have enforcement power

“During the late 1990s, corporations and celebrities who sponsored corporate products found that the public had certain expectations of them. The idea that corporations, whether they had committed to a corporate code or not, should abide by certain standards of conduct came to have a certain enforcement power of its own. It was the media and the public response to exploitative child labor that produced this result.”

3. Example: Gap policed itself

“1. The Gap. In early 1995, for instance, labor and religious groups mounted a campaign to protest sweatshop conditions prevalent in El Salvador among the contractors of the trendy clothing retailer, the Gap. A columnist at the New York Times related how young teenage girls were paid fifty-six cents an hour, forced to work eighteen hours a day, had to get tickets from supervisors to go to the bathroom, and were subject to firing if they formed a union. The Gap responded by suspending the contractor’s orders and sending investigators. Eventually, the Gap halted all business with the contractor until it met a set of newly adopted guidelines. Further, the Gap refused to deal with any other contractors until the government of El Salvador capably investigated such abuses and resolved the labor disputes fairly. In March 1996, the Gap established an independent monitoring system for human rights violations by its contractors. In an attempt to resolve the conflict, the clothing retailer agreed with its Salvadoran contractor and local religious, human rights, and labor organizations to monitor compliance under its revised and more specific code of conduct.”

[Ethos Note: Gap is 2^nd only to Wal-Mart in retail if you count all three of its chains, Gap, Banana Republic, and Old Navy. At least, that’s what their corporate propaganda says]

4. Example: Levi Strauss introduced a two-part review process that caused ending of 30 contracts, improvement of many suppliers, and complete pullout from two countries

“2. Levi Strauss. In September of 1991, Levi Strauss established a Sourcing Guidelines Working Group to develop standards for overseas suppliers not only for ethical reasons, but also to protect the company’s brand image. The group reviewed the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights instruments. In March 1992, the company adopted the task force’s guidelines after embarrassing media exposure of labor abuse at a company source factory in Saipan. The Levi-Strauss code of conduct has two parts. The first, Business Partner Terms of Engagement, addresses “workplace issues that are substantially controllable by [the company’s] individual business partners, such as environmental requirements, ethical, health and safety standards, legal regulations and employment practice.” The second part, Country Assessment Guidelines, entails issues that are probably beyond the ability of the business partner to control, but that nevertheless “could subject [the company’s] corporate reputation and therefore [its] business success, to potential harm.” These include health and safety, human rights, legal requirements, and political or social stability. The company has established an internal monitoring and enforcement system that begins with a questionnaire on employment practices in foreign plants, provides for audits, surprise site visits, review by company personnel, and possible termination of violators’ contracts. The company rates business suppliers according to a three-tiered system: contractors who are indifferent or unwilling to improve unacceptable working conditions are terminated; contractors who can possibly improve can negotiate a plan and time-table to resolve the problems; and contractors who could do more are encouraged to improve. At its Saipan contractor, Levi Strauss found virtually slave labor conditions. Immigrant workers were housed in padlocked barracks, their passports confiscated during the contract period. They worked for eleven hours a day, seven days a week, for $ 1.65 an hour. As a result of its investigation under its “Terms of Engagement,” Levi Strauss canceled its contract with the Saipan factory owner and with thirty other contractors in the Philippines, Honduras, and Uruguay while improving employment practices with one hundred others overseas. In Bangladesh, Levi Strauss established an innovative program in two plants where it discovered children under fourteen were working. In an agreement with local officials, the children returned to school but continued drawing pay from the contractor while Levi Strauss paid for their tuition, books, and uniforms and agreed to offer the children jobs at the plants when they became fourteen. In regard to its “Country Assessment Guidelines,” Levi Strauss checked whether any of its facilities in China and Burma were reported to use prison labor and conducted surprise visits and inquiries. As a result, the company entirely withdrew from both countries.”

5. Example: Talk show host organized industry summit and Labor Department’s “Now Sweat” campaign

“3. Kathie Lee Gifford. In May of 1996, talk show host Kathie Lee Gifford felt vilified after Charles Kernaghan, the executive director of the National Labor Committee, alleged that exploited child laborers in Honduras produced her Wal-Mart fashion line. Her first response was defensive. She declared herself a victim of a smear campaign and threatened to sue the organization that accused her of taking advantage of child labor. Eventually, however, she spoke with one of the children who worked in the sweatshop that produced the line of clothing bearing her name. To her credit, Mrs. Gifford began to work with other garment-endorsing celebrities to organize a July 16 industry summit in Washington, promoting the Labor Department’s “No Sweat” campaign.”

6. That businesses are made for profit does not necessarily contradict corporate codes, b/c many may find it profitable to conduct ethical business

“This particular criticism of corporate codes, however, may be wide off the mark because the corporate implementation of the codes does not depend entirely on altruism as its exclusive motivation. Codes of conduct make economic sense if corporate management believes that consumers are willing to pay a premium for products that are made without exploitative child labor, so that the corporation will enhance its profits by enhancing its image. There is evidence to support consumer willingness to pay such a premium. According to a survey of consumers taken in 1995, “78 percent of respondents said that they would prefer to shop at retail stores that had committed themselves to ending garment-worker abuse; 84 percent said they would pay $ 1 extra on a $ 20 item to ensure that the garment had been made in a worker friendly environment.” As Tim Smith, director of the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility, put it, corporations have taken an interest in social responsibility because a small group of individuals constituting only five percent of consumers are influenced by political and social concerns. “They’re fighting very hard for every percent of the market so they do pay attention and they do care very much.””

7. Child labor is decreasing globally, in some large part due to corporate codes

“The recent ILO [international labor organization] Report announcing reductions in the number of children who labor around the world indicates that in the teeth of increased global competition for cheap labor, the child labor situation is improving. The ILO found:

the number of child laborers in both age groups 5-14 and 5-17 fell by 11 per cent over the four years from 2000 to 2004. However, the decline was much greater for those engaged in hazardous work: by 26 per cent for the 5-17 age group, and 33 per cent for 5 to 14 year-olds … Child work is declining, and the more harmful the work and the more vulnerable the children involved, the faster the decline. The improvement is not attributable to corporate codes alone, though the ILO Report makes it clear that corporate codes have played a crucial role in this improvement. But the ILO report also speaks of a “growing global consensus” among the governments of developing countries on the need to set standards on child labor, and illustrates this consensus with examples of programs from various developing countries that reduce child labor”

8. Risk of embarrassment is driving companies away from child labor, as it is driving individualism (i.e. free mkt at work)

“Though the result is humanitarian, the driving force behind these codes is the avoidance of corporate embarrassment, which can mean the loss of sales. Corporations are now under the constant threat of embarrassment because investigative reporters can readily travel anywhere in the world with their video cameras collecting footage of laboring children that may be shown on CNN, the major networks, or the internet, or be splashed across the front pages of the major tabloids. The embarrassment is particularly intense when a figure of popular culture who endorses the products at issue, such as Kathie Lee Gifford, is dragged into the moral drama, for the exploitation of children provides what is perhaps the most provocative example of abusive labor practices. If humanitarian instinct should fail, concern for the possible loss of popular good will and consequent financial losses will motivate these figures and their corporate sponsors to sever their ties with exploitative child labor. But the embarrassment also reaches each individual whose purchase of a recognizable brand of clothing may elicit from friends and acquaintances the comment, “Did you know that children made that?” Influential journalists expose exploitation and tar corporations, celebrities, and even individuals who have any association with the products of child labor.”

A1. Corporate Codes are better foreign policy than government action

1. Codes do not involve the government as much and are more flexible, thus they are more acceptable to developing countries

2. Corporate codes sidestep political confrontation between nations

3. Corporate codes also keep developing countries from accusing rich countries of robbing cheap labor advantages, since it is against cheap labor interests of the corporation

4. Corporate codes come from multinational organizations

5. Sanctions do not properly approach child labor because they address governments heavy handedly to police private actions (often difficult to control)

6. Sanctions do little at best but may be counterproductive

7. The efficiency of trade restrictions for labor rights reduces as the importance of the subject country increases, suggesting an order won’t eliminate sweatshops

1. Codes do not involve the government as much and are more flexible, thus they are more acceptable to developing countries

“Hence, although corporations rather than governments developed corporate codes to improve business, governments can and do take advantage of the existence of these codes by extending the standards to other, non-corporate areas of employment in order to achieve goals that have thus far defied national and international authorities, such as the elimination of exploitative child labor and the cycle of poverty it implies. Also, because the codes and their implementation are ideally an outcome of negotiations between local labor interests and corporations, they reflect greater flexibility toward local economic circumstances and therefore are more acceptable to a developing country than uniform and coercive standards of a national or international agreement would be.”

2. Corporate codes sidestep political confrontation between nations

“Because corporate codes are neither generated by government action nor motivated by government interests, their implementation sidesteps the political confrontation between developed and developing countries over core labor standards. For one thing, these codes often require that the child labor laws of the host country be respected. The host country cannot very well complain that the corporation is imposing some foreign regime, or ignoring the law of the host country, when the corporation is in fact insisting that the host country’s domestic law be respected.”

3. Corporate codes also keep developing countries from accusing rich countries of robbing cheap labor advantages, since it is against cheap labor interests of the corporation

“Corporate codes of conduct mute the objections of developing countries in another respect. The extent to which corporations seek to impose and enforce codes of conduct undercuts the argument that the global adoption of core labor standards is merely a ploy to rob developing countries of their cheap labor advantage. Unlike the governments of developed countries, the corporations that are implementing codes of conduct cannot be accused of having protectionist motivations. The main reason these corporations are in developing countries at all is to take advantage of the cheap labor markets there. Corporations have invested a great deal in cultivating these markets and cannot want to destroy them in order to return to the more expensive labor of developed countries.”

4. Corporate codes come from multinational organizations

“The codes of conduct under discussion are not the result of international organizations or the product of treaties. These corporate codes result from the far-flung sourcing contracts of multinational corporations, in countries where these corporations cannot rely on government enforcement of child labor laws. The situation that creates these codes is the manufacture and export of items such as footwear or soccer balls that go from the hands of impoverished children working in developing countries to the hands of wealthy children playing in developed countries half the world away.”

5. Sanctions do not properly approach child labor because they address governments heavy handedly to police private actions (often difficult to control)

Annette Burkeen [Assistant Professor of Law, J.D.] “Private Ordering and Institutional Choice: Defining the Role of Multinational Corporations in Promoting Global Labor Standards,” Washington University Global Studies Law Review, 2007 (6 Wash. U. Global Stud. L. Rev. 205)

“The Myanmar situation demonstrates the difficulty with utilizing governmental trade sanctions as an enforcement mechanism. Such an approach, which has limited impact on states, has even less direct impact on non-governmental suppliers. Trade sanctions are tailored to address the failures of governments to take effective measures to protect labor rights. Trade sanctions may be warranted if the government actively participates in the labor rights violations or if the government fails to take any actions to address rampant violations by private actors. However, trade sanctions may be viewed as heavy-handed if states are making a good faith, but ineffective, attempt to address labor rights.”

6. Sanctions do little at best but may be counterproductive

“Trade sanctions, at best, indirectly pressure sweatshop operators to improve working conditions by shaming governments into adopting laws more protective of labor rights. Furthermore, it is conceivable, as the Myanmar situation demonstrates, that a country threatened with sanctions might not respond by raising labor standards, but instead choose to forego the benefits of international trade. The threat of trade sanctions may potentially result in economic isolation, which could be even more harmful to the workers whom the norms are designed to protect.”

7. The efficiency of trade restrictions for labor rights reduces as the importance of the subject country increases, suggesting an order won’t eliminate sweatshops

“According to Elliott and Freeman, the countries that have lost GSP benefits due to labor rights violations tended to be smaller and poorer countries. The United States‘ unwillingness to use trade sanctions against larger, more powerful countries, such as China, to address labor violations suggests that a national public order alone will not eliminate sweatshop conditions globally. “Coercive trade sanctions, or the threat thereof, will change the behavior of a foreign government when that government perceives that the costs of the sanctions will be greater than the perceived costs of complying with the sanctioner’s demands.” The GSP program is reasonably effective with respect to poorer countries because they “perceive that defying U.S. demands will have higher costs than complying with them.” However, the result of the cost-benefit analysis differs substantially for a country, such as China, where the United States benefits from access to Chinese markets as much as China benefits from access to U.S. markets. The efficiency of a national public order, from the U.S. perspective, is at its highest when the subject of the sanctions is a country that lacks economic and political significance to the United States. A national public order’s efficiency is significantly weakened when the target of the proposed sanctions is a country of greater economic or political significance.”

A2. The government is bypassed in the need to regulate

1. Process of corporate codes bypasses where government has failed. Reporters exposeàcorporations introduce codes

2. Corporate codes are a product of globalization where companies create solutions, not nations

3. The information age is subjecting companies to scrutiny in how they operate, giving consumers a powerful instrument of change

4. Example: Wal-Mart acted in 2005 and was more efficient than any judicial system

5. Contracting provides opportunities to actually enter factories and to join in collaborative projects and initiatives

6. Kathie Lee Gifford demonstrated the enormous power of consumers, bringing to child labor attention long ago lost

1. Process of corporate codes bypasses where government has failed. Reporters exposeàcorporations introduce codes

“The process by which corporations produce these codes largely bypasses the traditional players in international relations and human rights – that is, the states. This process begins with reporters and journalists reaching across the globe to expose violations of human rights. Responding to these revelations, consumers enforce their understanding of human rights standards by refusing to purchase from known violators. To remedy and prevent the appearance of facilitating human rights violations, corporations benefiting from labor in developing countries respond by promulgating codes of conduct that define their workers’ rights. Traditionally, codes containing rights were the product of nations and took the form of a treaty, a convention, or a Bill of Rights. But while the traditional instruments of international and national law have largely failed to regulate this contested area, corporate codes of conduct have introduced some progress. Hence, corporate codes have helped where governments and international law have thus far failed: the enforcement of workers’ rights, especially those of the child.”

2. Corporate codes are a product of globalization where companies create solutions, not nations

“Whatever their eventual impact may be on child labor, corporate codes of conduct are the product of globalization. In distinguishing globalization from internationalization, Professor Jost Delbruck wrote, “globalization … may be defined as a means to enable nation-states to satisfy the national interest in areas where they are incapable of doing so on their own.” Confronted with the failure of nations and international bodies to resolve the dilemma of exploitative child labor, actors who are not themselves nations or representatives of nations have developed a possible solution.”

3. The information age is subjecting companies to scrutiny in how they operate, giving consumers a powerful instrument of change

Natasha Rossell Jaffe [JD Candidate, 2006] and Jordan D. Weiss [JD Candidate, 2006] “THE SELF-REGULATING CORPORATION: HOW CORPORATE CODES CAN SAVE OUR CHILDREN” Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law, 2006 (11 Fordham J. Corp. & Fin. L. 893)

“The onslaught of the information age has brought change to many areas of corporate life. One of the infinite impacts of the information age is that corporations are finding it more difficult to keep the activities of their subsidiaries out of the public view. When consumers are made aware of wrongful corporate activities, they may react as consumers, possibly boycotting the MNC’s product, thereby injuring the bottom line. A 1995 survey reveals just how serious consumers are about labor issues. According to the survey, “78 percent of respondents said that they would prefer to shop at retail stores that had committed themselves to ending garment-worker abuse; 84 percent said they would pay $ 1 extra on a $ 20 item to ensure that the garment had been made in a worker friendly environment.” Surveys like this lead some to conclude that consumer human rights preferences are not incompatible with MNCs’ profit orientation. These commentators, like us, see consumer power as a formidable instrument of change.”

[MNC = Multinational Corporation]

4. Example: Wal-Mart acted in 2005 and was more efficient than any judicial system

“For example, Wal-Mart reported that in 2005, 141 factories were permanently banned from doing business with Wal-Mart because the suppliers utilized child labor. Another twenty-three factories were suspended for one year for multiple instances of non-compliance. In other instances, Wal-Mart provided training to the managers of suppliers to prevent additional violations. Finally, multinational corporations respond to violations in a more commercially practical time-frame than the judicial system. Judicial systems may take years to resolve a dispute. Companies, on the other hand, can respond swiftly by terminating or suspending the supply relationship or engage in follow-up inspections within months to ensure that the non-compliant behavior has been corrected. Under Wal-Mart’s revised program, a factory that is in violation of Wal-Mart’s code of conduct has 120 days to cure the violation. Failure to do so will result in a one-year suspension of the supply relationship.”

5. Contracting provides opportunities to actually enter factories and to join in collaborative projects and initiatives

“Relational contracting provides suppliers with an incentive to allow multinational corporations to enter their factories. It also creates opportunities for collaboration. For example, McDonald’s Corporation and the Walt Disney Company, in conjunction with a group of faith-based institutional investors, implemented “Project Kaleidoscope,” a collaborative project to determine how factory-based compliance with corporate codes of conduct can be improved and sustained over time. Wal-Mart’s “Stakeholder Engagement” initiative has a similar objective of reaching out to suppliers, non-governmental organizations, and local governments to improve labor practices and conditions.”

6. Kathie Lee Gifford demonstrated the enormous power of consumers, bringing to child labor attention long ago lost

“There is no better example of the consumer’s enormous power than the Kathie Lee Gifford incident. In 1996, Ms. Gifford was thrust into the epicenter of the child labor issue. After lending her name to a discount line of women’s clothing, it was discovered that the clothes were the product of Central American child labor. The discovery prompted a severe and uniform outcry from consumers. Whether as a result of this public outrage or her own conscience, Ms. Gifford is now one of the most outspoken personalities on the issue of child labor. Additionally, at a time when few politicians were focusing on the issue, scores of activists and media personalities suddenly surrounded the issue of child labor, bringing to it an attention that it had long ago lost. This example is illustrative of consumer power, a power which some have already attempted to harness.”

A3. Explanation of Corporate Codes

1. Definition: Corporate codes

2. Inherency: most codes are voluntary, many “industry wide,” then some multistake and international organization codes

1. Definition: Corporate codes

“Corporate codes, as the term is used in this note, can be described in the following manner: (1) they are voluntary in nature, (2) typically consisting of a series of principles, (3) standards or guidelines, which are broad and aspirational or detailed, and (4) operational in nature. The codes often refer to accepted international norms, many times emphasizing an adherence to domestic regulations. Sometimes the codes are created on an ad hoc basis to apply to a specific corporate entity, while at other times the code is formulated for an entire industry.”

2. Inherency: most codes are voluntary, many “industry wide,” then some multistake and international organization codes

“U.S.-based clothing manufacturers and retailers were the first to utilize codes. Many of these codes were adopted as a form of insulation – an attempt by corporations to protect themselves from the labor practices of their foreign subsidiaries. Others were created as a response to specific incidences which created negative publicity. The first corporate codes were individualized. These codes were voluntary and based on an OECD inventory of modern corporate codes. These remain the most prevalent. The next most common type of code is the “industry wide” code. This form of code is adopted by an industry or trade association after the members of that industry or association are given the opportunity to reach a consensus regarding its content. The remaining percentage is divided between those codes created by international organizations and those created by multistakeholders.”

B. Child Labor in India is Hard to Determine

1. Lack of birth registries make it hard to tell ages in India

2. Some children “labor” at home with their parents

1. Lack of birth registries make it hard to tell ages in India

“Implementation Experiences of Codes of Conduct in the U.S. Apparel Industry Child Labor in the Apparel Industry,” US Department of Labor, 1996, http://www.dol.gov/ilab/media/reports/iclp/apparel/3c.htm

“The field visits also revealed some problems in these countries with the systems normally used to verify the age of workers. In some countries, birth registries are not common and therefore there is no demonstrable method to determine age. In other countries, youths below the legal minimum age procure fraudulent identification cards or fake government permits required to prove that they have permission to work. Department of Labor officials were informed by a plant manager in Madras that in southern India, birth registries – as known in Western countries – do not exist. Therefore it is extremely difficult to determine the exact age of a young worker. A medical doctor’s certificate or school records may be the only ways to determine a person’s age.”

2. Some children “labor” at home with their parents

“Mr. A. Sakthivel, owner of Poppy’s, a Tirupur (India) garment firm, and President of the Tirupur Exporters Association, estimated that at least 5 percent of the Tirupur apparel firms are family-oriented with knitting machines located in the homes. Operations such as sewing buttons and other trimmings are also conducted as part of this homework. The head of Yuvraj International, another apparel plant in Tirupur (India), said that child labor in the garment industry takes place in more remote areas. Children perform low-skill duties such as cleaning and sweeping. He estimated that small-scale shops or cottage industry constitute 10 percent of the factories in Tirupur.”

C. India is combating child labor!

1. Indian states are implementing action plans to eliminate child labor

2. The Indian federal and some state governments are methodically combating child labor

3, Business collaboration via trade unions has seen forces joined to combat child labor in India

4. In India Export Promotion Councils will conduct external audits open for examination and involving NGOs

5. GAP is working with the Indian federal and some state governments on a child labor initiative

6. India’s commission on child rights is taking India’s first real acknowledgment that it needs to eliminate child labor and acting through export industry councils

7. India’s ministry on children’s rights has asked states to use task forces composed of not just government officials to audit industries for child labor

1. Indian states are implementing action plans to eliminate child labor

“The Department of Labor’s 2006 Findings on the Worst Forms of Child Labor,” Office of Child Labor, Forced Labor, and Human Trafficking (OCFT) Publications Published in 2007 http://www.dol.gov/ilab/programs/ocft/PDF/2006OCFTreport.pdf

“In India and Indonesia, the governments developed decentralized plans to eradicate child labor. The Indian States of Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, and Maharashtra enacted and are implementing State Action Plans on the elimination of child labor.”

2. The Indian federal and some state governments are methodically combating child labor

“The end of child labour: Within reach” INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONFERENCE 95th Session 2006 Report I (B), International Labor Organization, http://www.ilo.org/public/english/standards/relm/ilc/ilc95/pdf/rep-i-b.pdf

“National child labour projects in India Since the adoption of a National Child Labour Policy in 1987, the Government of India has spearheaded a major child labour elimination programme through its flagship National Child Labour Projects (NCLP). Thus far, 150 NCLPs have been launched across the country to provide educational and other rehabilitation services to children withdrawn from hazardous industries. The programme is supplemented by a budgetary allocation by the Government of Rs6,020 million (about US$131 million) during the Tenth Five-Year Plan 2002-07 to cover 250 districts out of a total of 601 districts during the plan period. The national programme is complemented by efforts aiming at universal elementary education, whilst several major states (provincial governments) are implementing time-bound programmes for the elimination of child labour.”

3, Business collaboration via trade unions has seen forces joined to combat child labor in India

“Trade unions joining hands against child labour in Andhra Pradesh, India Action taken by workers’ organizations in Andhra Pradesh, India, provides an interesting example of how workers’ organizations can join forces in combating child labour. The IPEC Andhra Pradesh State Based Project (APSBP) for the Elimination of Child Labour began in 2000, and played a facilitating role in enabling six different trade unions that had rarely collaborated in the past to join forces to work towards eradicating child labour. In 2001, following a series of meetings, consultations and workshops held with government and IPEC support, a collaborative programme of trade union action against child labour emerged.”

4. In India Export Promotion Councils will conduct external audits open for examination and involving NGOs

“US poke on child labour jolts India into action” The Economic Times, December 4, 2007, http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/Foreign_Trade/US_poke_on_child_labour_jolts_India_into_action/articleshow/2593212.cms

“Labour minister Oscar Fernandes, women & child development minister Renuka Chowdhury and Mr Ramesh met representatives of the EPCs from the five identified sectors on Friday to find a solution to the problem. The minister said it was decided the five sectors would conduct annual external social audit on child labour in a transparent manner. The audits will be open for examination by anyone who was interested. The EPCs would also work with NGOs and social activists and involve them in the audits and checks. The EPCs will also prepare perspective plans for child labour abolition in specific areas of geographical concentration. There are reports of carpet manufacturing units in Varanasi, Bhadhoi and Mirzapur, the sports goods industry in Jalandhar and gems & jewellery units in Surat and Bhavnagar employing child labour. EPCs will examine the supply chain in their industries to ensure not only exporters but sub-contractors and suppliers too conform to laws relating to child labour, Mr Ramesh said.”

5. GAP is working with the Indian federal and some state governments on a child labor initiative

“US apparel major Gap joins with Indian govt for workers` rights” Business in Asia Today, Asia Pulse July 2, 2008 http://www.antara.co.id/en/arc/2008/7/2/us-apparel-major-gap-joins-with-indian-govt-for-workers-rights/

“A year after being embroiled in a child labour controversy, leading US apparel and footwear brand Gap has embarked on a national initiative for welfare of children and women in collaboration with the Ministry of Women and Child Development and various state governments. “The initiative will see the company forming a collaboration with the central and some state governments, like Bihar and Andhra Pradesh, for prevention, rehabilitation and eradication of child labour and exploitation of women labour at various outsourcing factories of the company,” Gap International Sourcing (India) Director (Social Responsibility) said Lakshmi Menon Bhatia.”

6. India’s commission on child rights is taking India’s first real acknowledgment that it needs to eliminate child labor and acting through export industry councils

“Audit call to check child labour” The Telegraph, Calcutta, India, July 19, 2008, http://www.telegraphindia.com/1080719/jsp/nation/story_9570943.jsp

“India’s apex child rights panel has asked states and export promotion councils to do a social audit of industries plagued by child labour in a novel bid to check the offence. It has recommended that Indian exporters use self-regulatory mechanisms employed by leading international garment and carpet exporters to contain child labour in production of goods. This is the first time India has officially acknowledged that it may need to learn from the West in its campaign to eliminate child labour, government officials said. GAP and Primark, leading apparel chains from the UK, have over the past year suspended Indian sub-contractors after they were found employing children primarily for embroidery and stitching. But the labour and commerce ministries responded to criticism of Indian efforts to curb child labour by suggesting that the West was targeting Delhi because of its attraction as an outsourcing shore. In a letter to all export promotion councils — each export based industry has a separate council — the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) said: “They (international companies) have shown that through such self-regulatory mechanisms child labour can be avoided.”

The NCPCR, in the June 25 letter, has also asked the councils to include, in all contracts with manufacturers, a clause explicitly stating that “children are not to be employed”.

“Further, we request you to carry out processes of social audit in all stages of production of goods that you export. This would be from supply to export stage,” the letter says.

A copy of the letter has been sent to the commerce ministry.”

7. India’s ministry on children’s rights has asked states to use task forces composed of not just government officials to audit industries for child labor

“Audit call to check child labour” The Telegraph, Calcutta, India, July 19, 2008, http://www.telegraphindia.com/1080719/jsp/nation/story_9570943.jsp

“In a separate letter, the NCPCR has asked states to set up district-level task forces that will undertake regular social audits of key industries where child labour has been rampant.

The June 24 letter clarifies that the audit must cover domestic labour. “A review of the social audit through the task force must be carried out by the collector and the (state) labour department must take action to book cases against concerned employers, and take the case to its logical conclusion,” the letter says. The commission has also issued guidelines on how the auditing must be done. The task force should consist of state government officials, NGOs, reputed public personalities, a trade union member and representatives of the Nehru Yuva Kendra, the NCPCR has said. “We will review the scenario after a month. We want to identify which states are eager to improve. The functioning of the task forces will also be reviewed,” NCPCR chairperson Shantha Sinha said. The task force must visit production units on a daily basis, at different times of the day, over a continuous period of a week. This must be followed by another visit as a follow-up after a week’s break, the NCPCR has recommended.”

D. U.S. Government Action to Combat Child Labor

1. The U.S. DOL and India cooperate with $40 million to the INDUS project, which targets withdrawing 80,000 children from hazardous sectors

2. Clinton made a 1997 “no sweat” labeling program to work with private corporations

3. The “no sweat” Clinton administration campaign utilized community power to get MNCs to respond

4. U.S. government notice on child labor has produced recent action in India, including annual external audits

1. The U.S. DOL and India cooperate with $40 million to the INDUS project, which targets withdrawing 80,000 children from hazardous sectors

“The Government of India and USDOL jointly fund and collaborate on the USD 40 million INDUS project, which targets 80,000 children for withdrawal from work in 10 hazardous sectors: bidis, brassware, bricks, fireworks, footwear, glass bangles, locks, matches, quarrying, and silk. The project, implemented by ILO-IPEC, is designed to complement the NCLP program and government primary education initiatives. Target areas are 21 districts in the States of Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, and Uttar Pradesh, as well as the National Capital Territory of Delhi. The project is scheduled to continue through September 2008.”

2. Clinton made a 1997 “no sweat” labeling program to work with private corporations

“President Clinton’s announcement in April of 1997 of the Apparel Industry Partnership’s accord among apparel industry, consumer, and human rights groups provided some of this standardization. The agreement includes guidelines that prohibit corporations from employing children under fifteen in most nations. Additionally, the agreement contains a declaration of other workers’ rights, such as the right to collective bargaining, a minimum wage, and a sixty-hour workweek. Corporations that sign this agreement may mark their products with the words, “No Sweat,” to indicate that they comply with the standards of the accord.”

3. The “no sweat” Clinton administration campaign utilized community power to get MNCs to respond

“During the first term of the Clinton administration, Labor Secretary Robert B. Reich launched the “No Sweat” campaign. This endeavor attempted to steer MNCs in the garment industry into compliance with labor laws by exposing the retailers who were using overseas child labor. The Labor Department also published the Labor Department Trendsetter list. The list highlighted the MNCs that “demonstrated a commitment to U.S. labor laws, and to monitoring overseas production. In effect, the “No Sweat” campaign utilized the duality of consumer power by punishing malfeasant corporations with negative publicity and rewarding those corporations that refuse to employ child labor with positive publicity. It is in this milieu that MNCs are becoming profoundly aware of consumer power, and they have begun to respond, primarily by instituting corporate codes.”

4. U.S. government notice on child labor has produced recent action in India, including annual external audits

“A US government notification on proposed procedural guidelines issued in October on imported goods made using child or enforced labour has finally acted as a wake-up call for India.

The ministries of commerce, labour and women & child development have got together and decided to get exporters from five child labour-sensitive sectors including apparel, handicraft, carpet, sports goods and gems & jewellery to conduct annual external social audits on child labour as per the national labour laws and rules. Export promotion councils (EPC) will also prepare a perspective plan for child labour abolition in specific areas of geographical concentration. Recently, US textile retail giant GAP stopped sourcing from a New Delhi vendor following reports of child labour employed in its units. Addressing a Press conference on Monday, minister of state for commerce Jairam Ramesh said the US notification on proposed action against goods made using child labour had to be taken seriously. “The issue of child labour, raised in the US Congress 12 years ago but later dumped, is being revisited by the US government. This has to be taken seriously,” he said.”

E. Sometimes Child Labor is Okay

1. Poverty makes child labor a difficult question because sometimes their work is necessary and even sweatshops beat the alternative

2. When 55,000 Bangladesh children lost their jobs the results were not so positive

3. History: Some in America viewed child labor as essential and it wasn’t banned until 1938 (though many tries to ban it failed)

4. Child labor is how poor get food and clothing in India

5. Alt Cause: Poverty is the problem, child labor is a mere symptom

6. The children need child labor due to various causes, such as state neglect of education

1. Poverty makes child labor a difficult question because sometimes their work is necessary and even sweatshops beat the alternative

“A variety of factors conspires to make the formulation and application of international standards in child labor difficult. Perhaps the most significant of these is the degree of poverty that generates child labor. Poverty provides a potent argument against the application of uniform standards for all situations. There are times when children work in order to eat. Sometimes, children work in order to afford their attendance at school. In some cases, schooling may not be available, or the available education is so substandard that it is useless as a preparation for adult occupation. Under these circumstances, parents and their children often make a calculated decision that the children are better off working. The sweatshop job may in fact be highly desirable in comparison to the alternatives. In this situation, implementing standards that will throw children out of work is counterproductive and resented.”

2. When 55,000 Bangladesh children lost their jobs the results were not so positive

“For example, in 1993 an estimated 55,000 children in Bangladesh lost their jobs because the Bangladesh Garment Manufacturers and Exporters Association feared an international boycott of their products, if its membership did not conform to Bangladeshi law prohibiting the employment of children under fifteen. An ILO-UNICEF follow-up study showed that few of these children went back to school. Some of them turned to even less remunerative and harder work in the domestic sector. Others never found work. The terminations elicited a petition from one hundred of the very children they were meant to protect, asking their employers not to dismiss them, but “to allow us to continue our light work for 5-6 hours a day and give us an opportunity to attend school for two to three hours a day.””

3. History: Some in America viewed child labor as essential and it wasn’t banned until 1938 (though many tries to ban it failed)

“Consider the following quotation: “We cannot possibly gravitate from a condition of agriculturalism to a condition of industrialism without the employment of minors.” This statement was not made in recent times by an official from a developing country. It is taken instead from the testimony of Lewis Parker, a South Carolina cotton mill owner, before the House of Representatives Committee on Labor in 1914, on legislation that would outlaw the use of child labor in the United States. Even today, stories surface in the United States about child labor among migrant workers, in the garment industry, retail, and construction. At the turn of the twentieth century, the exploitation of child labor in parts of the United States was comparable in its extremity to situations that exist in parts of the developing world today. Congress attempted to control child labor by passing the Child Labor Act in 1916. The act would have banned interstate commerce of products from mines and quarries in which children under the age of sixteen worked, or products from other factories in which children under fourteen worked, or in which children between fourteen and sixteen worked for more than eight hours a day. In 1918, however, the United States Supreme Court held, in Hammer v. Dagenhart, that Congress had no power under the Constitution to regulate child labor. Congress thought the issue so important that in 1924 it passed a constitutional amendment, the Child Labor Amendment, which provided, “The Congress shall have power to limit, regulate, and prohibit the labor of persons under eighteen years of age.” The Amendment never received the endorsement of three-quarters of the states. In 1938, however, the U.S. Congress successfully legislated against child labor by passing the Fair Labor Standards Act, which the Supreme Court upheld under the power of the interstate commerce clause in United States v. Darby, in effect overturning Hammer.”

4. Child labor is how poor get food and clothing in India

“Unilever and Child Labour,” Expatica [European news source], July21 2003, http://www.expatica.com/nl/life_in/feature/unilever-and-child-labour-67.html

“Statistics show many of the poorest families in India earn 30 percent or more of the household income from sending the children out to work. This puts food on the table and clothes on their backs. If child labour is abolished, high-minded liberals in Western Europe will be chuffed, but the child workers in India and elsewhere will be worse off than before. And prices will go up in your local shop. Child labour is not a problem in itself. The problem arises when children are exploited and treated like cattle.”

5. Alt Cause: Poverty is the problem, child labor is a mere symptom

Rita Panicker, [director of an NGO for working children in India, specializes in social work from the Mumbai-based Tata Institute of Social Sciences] “Interview: ‘Child labour is a symptom; not the problem’,” Merinews, October 17^th, 2006

http://www.merinews.com/catFull.jsp?articleID=123577&category=India&catID=2&rtFlg=rtFlg

“You cannot eradicate child labour in isolation and by simply banning it. A multi-pronged approach to the problem is what is needed to bring relief to these children. Child labour is just a symptom; it is not the problem. The problem lies elsewhere and unless the problem itself is addressed, merely addressing the symptom makes the situation immensely worse for the victim children. It is dire necessity, poverty that forces them to take that drastic step. It is a rational response to an unbearable condition.”

6. The children need child labor due to various causes, such as state neglect of education

Barbara Harriss-White [Field Economist specializing in South Asia, has carried out policy research for 7 UN agencies – including food, disability, social security and post harvest technology, Indian agriculture expert, Professor of Development Studies at Queen Elizabeth House and Fellow of Wolfson College, University of Oxford] “India Working: Essays on Society and Economy” Published by Cambridge University Press, 2003 (pg. 29-30)

“Child labour has always been part of the family labour force. Nearly two-thirds of child labour is of this sort. It is the continuity between this and paid work on the one hand, and the State’s egregious neglect both of education and of any means of implementing the existing limited law banning child labour in hazardous industries on the other, which penalize the children of labourers. The most recent estimate is that while 40 million children work, 13 million or 6 per cent of the 215 million children aged between 5 and 14 work for wages. The casual component of this young army – one-third – is slowly rising and being feminized. “It is not that the economy cannot do without child labour, it is rather that many children cannot do without employment: comments Ajit Ghose (1999, p2604).””

4 Comments

Jamie Holts on September 23, 2008 at 10:32 pm

I’ve been reading along for a while now. I just wanted to drop you a comment to say keep up the good work.
Chlozarth on September 26, 2008 at 2:24 pm

YESSSS! Order and reason is restored. Ethos is the father and mother and children of all my idealistic pragmatist moments. I couldn’t be happier. : )
Josiah Hinterberger on September 29, 2008 at 11:20 am

Okayyy….it says on the homepage that Ethos India is available, but on the order page there is no purchasing link. What gives?
Isaiah McPeak on September 29, 2008 at 12:59 pm

Sorry about that. Miscommunication with webmaster meant the book was done but it couldn’t be purchased. Looks like I successfully uploaded a button on the “We are ready!” post.

We release Saturday…

NEG – CHILD LABOR IN INDIA

A. Free Market/Private Action Solves

A1. Corporate Codes are better foreign policy than government action

A2. The government is bypassed in the need to regulate

A3. Explanation of Corporate Codes

B. Child Labor in India is Hard to Determine

C. India is combating child labor!

D. U.S. Government Action to Combat Child Labor

E. Sometimes Child Labor is Okay

Like this:

4 Comments

Leave a suggestion, question, or other comment!Cancel reply

Get Our Emails

Categories

We release Saturday…

NEG – CHILD LABOR IN INDIA

A. Free Market/Private Action Solves

A1. Corporate Codes are better foreign policy than government action

A2. The government is bypassed in the need to regulate

A3. Explanation of Corporate Codes

B. Child Labor in India is Hard to Determine

C. India is combating child labor!

D. U.S. Government Action to Combat Child Labor

E. Sometimes Child Labor is Okay

Share this:

Like this:

4 Comments

Leave a suggestion, question, or other comment!Cancel reply

Get Our Emails

Categories