Clean Clothes Podcast

Welcome to the Clean Clothes Podcast. In this series we'll look at the challenges, strategies, and gains of the Clean Clothes Campaign. We'll share the stories and reflections of members from across the network. We'll begin full publication in January 2021. 

The half hour episode explores how organisations in different countries from across the Clean Clothes Campaign network supported workers in the time of COVID. In this episode, we hear how: Community mobilisation defended a garment worker in Romania; Trade unions and worker organisations made gains in Bangladesh and Sri Lanka; The effects of the pandemic in Turkey has led to a re-think on future campaigns to support worker rights; Plus thoughts and reflections on the impact of COVID on worker organising.Please share your feedback, comments and questions, by emailing: podcast@cleanclothes.orgSpeakers:Laura Stefanut, campaigner and former investigative journalist, RomaniaAnton Marcus, Joint Secretary of FTZ&GSEU (Free Trade Zone and General Services Employees Union), Sri LankaKalpona Akter, Executive Director of BCWS (Bangladesh Center for Workers Solidarity)Bego Demir, Clean Clothes Campaign, TurkeyChristie Miedema, Clean Clothes Campaign International Office, NetherlandsMandy Felicia, EILER (Ecumenical Institute for Labor Education and Research), PhilippinesHost: Febriana Firdaus (febrianafirdaus.com)Sound Engineering Support:  Steve Adam (www.spectrosonics.com.au)Producer: Matthew AbudClean Clothes Podcast Team: Anne Dekker, Johnson Ching-Yin Yeung, Liz Parker, Tanne de GoeiFull Transcript HOSTWelcome to the first episode of the first series of the Clean Clothes podcast. I'm Febriana Firdaus.  As this episode is being produced, we've all heard terrible news out of Myanmar, with the military overthrow of the elected parliament. From all of us on the podcast, and certainly everyone in Clean Clothes, we want to express our solidarity and support to everyone from our network in Myanmar.  And to all the people of that country who stand for democracy, and for human rights and the rights of workers.  We're also sending our solidarity to my co-host, Manny Maung – she's completely caught up now, in the response to the military coup.  We'll have more to say from Clean Clothes, at the end of the show. We know that under COVID, brands have cancelled orders and refused to pay for completed work.  Many suppliers have cut wages and fired workers, who have far too often also been excluded from social safety nets and other support. In Romania one worker, Angelica Manole, protested against her wage cut.  Laura Stefanut is a former investigative journalist there, who got involved in the campaign. She tells the story.  LAURAAngelica is a brave worker who spoke about the fact that she was only paid about one hundred and forty Euros for one month's work. Each day she worked at least eight hours a day and she was paid like about half the minimum legal wage in Romania. So she spoke about this on Facebook. I believe she was the first garment worker that was so outspoken and so open to speaking to journalists and to Facebook friends. That's how we found out.  The company Tanex where Angelica was working, they're among the biggest garment factories in Romania. Certainly they're a famous factory. They were actually in the past they were trying to attract workers by saying that they pay more than other factories because as you probably know, in Romania workers are only paid the minimum wage, they work extra hours many times unpaid, the living wage is way above the legal minimum wage here so we're talking about people who work but stay poor.  At the factory what they did when the inspection went there, they said that she didn't work actually. So basically they lied, they said that she didn't come to work. But then you know it was a public scandal, I mean I helped her write some complaints to the Ministry of Labour, to the worker inspection, I also myself wrote complaints. I also contacted the Labour Ministry in Romania directly by phone and I was promised that things would be resolved and somehow they were, I mean there was another inspection which found the first inspection was wrong, and actually the factory did not register any absence of the worker, she was obviously there. So they fined the factory. Angelica was fired by Tanex. So even having all the national media's attention on you, even having strong figures who are taking your side like the Minister itself, she was still fired by the factory. Why, the factory wrote that she was fired because she spoke to the media.  I decided to generate a fundraising for Angelica, so we can cover the costs for her during the trial which lasted at least six months and have her paid the minimum salary, what she had at the factory. And it was amazing, in less than two days all the money were raised and there was huge support for Angelica from the public, you know, they were like cheering her, and actually so much money was raised that we were able to help three persons who were laid off from the factory. I think that this was utterly important, because the factories try to show that if you don't do exactly what the factory wants you to do, then you are, it's game over for you. And it usually is you know, so it's so important to show that the community can support you in such cases. It's utterly important.  Then I proposed this Urgent Appeal to the Clean Clothes Campaign on Angelica's case because I thought it made all the sense. She was very involved, she was very active, we knew the brands, we had a lot of data on the factory. They contacted the brands that were headquartered in those specific countries. At first it didn't seem to go well because the brands were reluctant, they were saying we were not right, the factories were saying everything is ok, look. So the CCC actually provided proof of these fines, and proof that the factory was actually lying to the brands. And they finally you know, they were convinced.  All the workers were paid. This was indeed a victory, even those who were fired, they were finally given the money, all the money they were owed. But this was just a case where everybody got involved you know. There are over one hundred and twenty thousand workers in this industry, like legally registered. So in order to make things work like for a bigger length of time, you have to have the people inside who know their rights, who are organised in one way or another.  There was a trade union, Unicomf, which was pretty active meaning that they heard about the case, they went there, they tried to get inside the factory, they were not allowed. So then they pushed together with the help of the brands and they were allowed inside the factory, they could talk to workers. But after this point they couldn't form a trade union. So they said Ok, guys we did what we could, we went there, we presented the case. If the workers didn't get subscribed then we cannot waste much resources because we don't have so much resources. Which I can understand, but at the same time we know that community organising or forming a trade union somewhere, it takes a lot of time and patience and some resources. They were helpful, but unfortunately a trade union was not formed there.  Things would not have been solved for the workers there, they would not have received their salaries, if there was not an international involvement and push. If you are not bullet proof when you go to war then they destroy you because the way they're lying, it's so you know natural I was shocked. I was shocked to see it, yeah. It's good to have the proof there, and to have as many witnesses as you can and as many documents as you can so when you go you just punch them and it's knockout.  HOSTThat's Laura Stefanut from Romania.  Angelica Manole was offered her old job back before the court case – but refused it. She's since found another job in her community.  COVID has hit garment workers hard in factories across the world. But the impacts and the responses are far from uniform.  A critical factor is the political space that trade unions can claim, along with other worker support organisations.  Our producer Matthew Abud, takes a look at the experiences of two South Asia countries, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh. REPORTERIn Sri Lanka, a sudden lockdown in March left tens of thousands of garment workers stranded in Free Trade Zones, far from home villages and community networks of support.  The Free Trade Zone and General Services Employees Union, organised food rations, and also petitioned the government to help workers get back home.  In April the lockdown eased. Anton Marcus, is the union's Joint Secretary.  ANTONAnd then the government gradually reopened the factories. At that time we proposed the government to set up a tripartite task force to deal with the labour matters, because we told the government this is the time we have to come together. Because even the employers, or the government, or the trade unions cannot face these challenges alone. REPORTER The government had to move on the Task Force for several reasons.  ANTONBecause it very seriously impact on the export sector, and so our union is the majority union who represents the export sector employees. The other was at that time the government was preparing an election, general election. So politically they were very nervous,  that if there is any campaign or any protest, it will impact on their election result. So that is why the government had to appoint this task force.  REPORTERSocial distancing requirements meant factories couldn't re-start with a full workforce.  ANTON Then the employers took up the position that they're not in the position to pay the wages for the workers who are not reporting for work. At the beginning they said there are about five hundred thousand employees in the apparel sector, they want to dismiss three hundred thousand. So we said no way, because workers has to manage with their own. After we got the assurance that no-one will be dismissed, and then we said ok, we are agreed to introduce rotational system.  REPORTERAs well as defending jobs, through the Tripartite Task Force, Anton Marcus's union also negotiated financial support.  The eventual agreement meant that workers would not receive less than seventy five percent of their previous wage, even if they were not working.  In Bangladesh meanwhile, a recent report says over three hundred and fifty thousand garment workers lost their jobs.[1] As in Sri Lanka and other countries, unions mobilised to get food to workers.  Kalpona Akter is Executive Director of the labour rights advocacy organisation, Bangladesh Center for Workers Solidarity.  She says order cancellations by brands, and factory closures, brought fear and repression.  KALPONABut you know the workers' situation was more dire when factory management is started hand-picking them and firing. Like, pregnant workers was targeted, like they were like hand-picking these leaders and firing them. Many cases, I mean most of cases they didn't get the severances even. And one case I should mention that, the retaliation went that end that the factory kidnapped one of the union office-bearers middle of the night, and we had to jump on and we had to start fighting and keep calling all the polices and every security agency we can, to make sure that the guy not take away and he's not shipping to anywhere. And you know, we had been succeeded because we respond very rapidly on that but the factory keep doing retaliation to these workers as well. And lately our federation also facing that. But you know in general, this is what kind of freedom of association violations that our workers was facing. They were going in both ways, some of them was really afraid, that they don't want to raise voice because they will be lose their jobs which they cannot afford. And some of them really really says no, we have to fight back.  REPORTERYet along with the hardship, unions in both Sri Lanka and Bangladesh have been able to build on their many responses, to boost membership. For Anton's union, this started by making sure workers were aware of how their rights had been defended.  This defense included stopping employer efforts to cut overtime payments, and to reduce labour law protections.  ANTONBecause of our intervention in the Tripartite Task Force, we got these kind of protective measures. And then we published, because worker don't know, workers don't know about these things. And the employers also hiding. So we published in the newspaper the basic thing of the Task Force decisions, and then we distributed the leaflets to raise the awareness among the workers about their rights under the pandemic, and as a result of our intervention some of the factory workers contacted us and they organised unions now. We got more than two thousand new members. So we supported them, and as a result they become members of our union.    REPORTERKalpona says while union membership initially dropped, unrelenting effort turned that around in mid-2020.  This includes her own organisation, which as a grassroots operation, has tens of thousands of solidarity members.  KALPONALike last, first few weeks, few months, we have been seen that it is decreasing enormously because then were so much fear just, they were focusing just to save their jobs, so they have money and they can feed themselves, at least they can live, you know, alive. I think we have been done our organising good in June July, during those two three months. And then from end of August it has been turning around and workers started coming to our centre in person. And we had to open the centre for them as well. So we took our life risk because they're taking risk as well.  So it is been turn back and now I think that workers are more strong enough to do organising though they knows that there might be so many consequences. They knows that they need to fight..  REPORTERKalpona thinks the emphasis of some labour organising may need to shift.  KALPONAThe COVID is not going like overnight or over year, it's a long run thing that we have in our planet now. So you know, if it is goes long then it will be consequences with the business, and if it is consequences with business that will be directly affect to the workers. So that in one way we feel we have more responsibility to work with government, manufacturers and brands, to make sure that our workers has unemployment insurance, has social security. So those are the areas will be focusing or working on more these days.  REPORTERAnton also sees several future challenges.  ANTONEmployers are very much getting, come together with the government. And we know that gradually the Army presence is getting increase in Sri Lanka, all the things are now undertaken by Army. So we see that there is a challenge. And maybe there will be a kind of a repression on us, so we have to be ready to face these challenges.  This is the good opportunity for workers to understand how important is the global solidarity, because this is the global challenge. We cannot find solution nationally. So therefore, we use this opportunity to educate the workers how important the global solidarity. And we want to see that the global unions and the other campaign organisations who are supporting for the employees, has to come together.  HOSTAnton Marcus ending that report from Matthew Abud. In Turkey the challenges to organising and supporting workers impacted by COVID has a different context.  After the attempted coup d'etat in 2016, the government cracked down on civil society, arresting thousands and shutting down many non-government organisations.  The coup's impact on trade unions and other worker support organisations remains profound. Bego Demir is with Clean Clothes Campaign in Turkey.  BEGOThe formulation of union also is changed. Like some union is also very close to government, like they organise factories when you check their numbers it's rising, but the worker, the union who actually support the workers right, which is like they work independently when you check their number it's going down. Like, clearly you understand from that picture like there is pressure like and effort from the government behind it.  HOSTThe structure of Turkey's garment sector also has a big role.  BEGOThe supply chain is big and it's differently formulated than other countries. You can see a lot of Tier 3, Tier 4 factories with just a few workers. Those small factories are unregistered, the workers work are unregistered, so unregistered workers, they don't have any rights.  HOST Bego says this means that, during the short lockdown in March, workers relied on family and community networks to survive – unions only had a minor role.  Unlike elsewhere, brands didn't cancel orders, likely because Turkey is so close to European consumer markets.  Factory workers were also exempted from later lockdown.  But they travelled and worked in crowded conditions where social distancing was impossible.  That meant a change of campaign tactics was needed. BEGOAt the first when Clean Clothes Campaign start their campaign, Pay Up Campaign, pay your workers campaign, so we joined that campaign but we saw the campaign is not covering all textile needs. So we start a campaign here as COVID to be recognised an occupational disease. Because legally when a worker has an occupational disease, doesn't matter when it's registered or unregistered, government have to give their rights. Because like, one hundred twenty one countries accepted like recognised COVID like occupational disease for health sector. So we so not just for health sector, for all workers. We get support for the campaign from all doctors, from like health sector as well, so we hope they will accept it, but it is a big challenge because it will be new. Let's see the result.  HOSTWithout this measure, unregistered workers can't get official support if they become sick with COVID.  Unregistered workers also can't legally join unions.  Over the longer term, protecting any of their rights – including health, or wages, or freedom of association – means this has to change.  BEGOWe reorganised our future structure. We were mostly focused on the living wage, on the workers' rights, but one of our main campaigns in future will be a way to register workers. Now we also spoke with some other partner in Turkey, some other NGOs, and they all realised that's a big problem. So in the future, somehow we need to push the government to make it work. I think like the reason government is not very strong to make all worker being registered, they want to attract people, attract brand especially, so they want to be in a competition with China. We want to change that, we want to convince them that cannot be a benefit for country.  HOST That's Bego Demir, from Clean Clothes in Turkey.  We've looked at several different examples of building trade unions and worker organisations, and defending rights in the time of COVID.   We asked Christie Miedema CHRISTIEI'm Christie Miedema. I work at the International Office of the Clean Clothes Campaign HOSTAnd Mandy Felicia  MANDYI am Mandy Felicia from ILIR, Philippines  HOSTFor their thoughts on how worker COVID's impacted worker organising MANDYDuring this COVID what stands out is really the collective effort of all the workers to try to sustain workers' organisations. We only do organising in communities and boarding houses of the workers. But during the pandemic it also prevented us from doing that, no? So what stands out really is the creative form how the workers tried to get in touch with each other. Using the new technology, and also the old technology of passing letters, no, to each other to give news to eqach other and to keep the organisations alive, by maintaining contact.  CHRISTIEWhat stands out to me is that COVID 19 has really created a threat of rolling back gains that were made in the past, rolling back workers rights, rolling back also maybe in the field of practices of brands becoming a bit more aware of how their choices influence their supply chains. We see them turning their backs on their supply chains, despite all those years of convincing brands that they're responsible for the supply chain.  MANDYThe pandemic also exposes the rottenness of the system, the capitalist system, how profit is given more importance than the lives of the people. Sad to say the system also took advantage of the crisis to exploit more, and take away the gains of the movement. The pandemic has taught us to rely more on ourselves and pinpoint the real importance of organisation, and the need to belong to one. There has been a lot of consciousness not only on the level of solidarity among the workers but also of international solidarity. Workers now see and understand more the global supply chain. They now look at how pandemic affected the workflow, the orders, you know the movement of the products have become very very conscious of that.  CHRISTIEI think a lot of the challenges that we'll continue to see are the ones that we did already. It's the fact that wages are not being paid, that workers are being dismissed without receiving their full severance pay, and the continued rollback of rights.  MANDYWe don't only have a problem with the pandemic. But also government using pandemic as an excuse to further repress and stop the people from being organised to challenge government policies. Last year on December 10 many unionists were arrested simultaneously, and a lot of unionists and labour rights defenders are now being accused of being rebels and are being put into jail using trumped-up charges. So we view with concern what is happening in Myanmar because we might have the same situation here, you know.  CHRISTIEAnd I think also the good thing is we have already learned from this, it took us all by surprise in March, in April, but we have learned to stay together and to face these challenges. So I think while the challenges might be similar, or while there might be new things coming towards us, we are stronger now, we have made up our minds and we know that we can stand together.  MANDYThere is a need to continuously assess, no.  Not only our situation but also our methods of organising and education, which is of paramount importance. But probably form is only secondary to the need of always working and being with the workers in their communities and workplaces if possible. We hope to find ways to better, for better security and health measures because I think the pandemic should not stop us from going to the workers. And that is the only thing that is constant for us, the need to organise ourselves, to assert our rights and together shape a better normal post-pandemic.  HOSTThat's Mandy Felicia.  And that's the end of our show.  Please send your thoughts, feedback, and questions. Email us at this address: podcast@cleanclothes.org. You can also see the email address on the podcast webpage. Matthew Abud produced this episode, with Anne Dekker, and the Clean Clothes Podcast team – Liz Parker, Tanne de Goei, and Johnson Chin-Yin Yeung. I'm Febriana Firdaus. See you for the next episode.  Before we go, a message from Clean Clothes about the situation in Myanmar. MIMMYThis is Mimmy Kowel, Coordinator of Clean Clothes Campaign South East Asia Coalition. This is our message to the workers in Myanmar. We, the global Clean Clothes Campaign Network, stand in solidarity with you. We condemn the military coup in Myanmar, and strongly urge all political leaders and military officials, to respect the 2020 election results, and restore the democratic process. All detained political leaders and activists should be released and no further arrests made. We will continue to closely follow the situation in your country, and we are ready to support as much as we can.   [1] Live blog, Jan. 23: https://cleanclothes.org/news/2021/live-blog-on-how-the-coronavirus-influences-workers-in-supply-chains

What does it take to make the workplace safe for women, free from sexual harassment and gender-based violence? What are some of the ways women have won improvements, and how did they build their power to do this?In this episode: A union in Indonesia declares an industrial park a ‘harassment free zone': Dian Septi Trisnanti, FBLP, Indonesia An Enforceable Brand Agreement aims to end severe gender-based violence in factories in Lesotho: Motheba Ramaema & Sam Mokhele, NACTWU, Rola Abimourched, WRC. Rukmini tells her story of becoming a union founder, and why more women need to lead worker struggles: Rukmini, GLU, India Campaigns to ratify ILO Convention 190 on Violence and Harassment: Priscilla Robledo, CCC Italy and Sina Marx, FEMNET, Germany Please tell us what inspired you about this show, and share your feedback, comments and questions, by emailing: podcast@cleanclothes.org  Speakers:  Dian Septi Trisnanti, founder of FBLP union (Federasi Buruh Lintas Pabrik) , Chairperson of KPBI union, IndonesiaMotheba Ramaema, shop steward, National Clothing, Textile and Allied Workers Union, LesothoSam Mokhele, General Secretary, National Clothing, Textile and Allied Workers Union, LesothoRola Abimourched, Senior Program Director at the Worker Rights Consortium,  USA. Rukmini Vaderapura Puttaswamy, President of Garment Labour Union (GLU), Bangalore.  Priscilla Robeldo, campaigner and lobby and advocacy coordinator with CCC Italy.Sina Marx, Coordinator International Projects and Campaigns, FEMNET, Germany. Host: Febriana Firdaus (febrianafirdaus.com) Field Reporter: Harsha VadlamaniInterpreter: KaveriSound Engineering Support: Steve Adam (www.spectrosonics.com.au)  Producer: Matthew Abud  Clean Clothes Podcast Team: Anne Dekker, Johnson Ching-Yin Yeung, Liz Parker, Tanne de Goei Full Transcript DIAN:When we built our union in 2009, most of us, the officers, are women. And we have the same vision for the equality and also fight against GBV. We have method in organise women workers as women.  HOST:That's Dian Septi Trisnanti, one of the founders of the Forum Buruh Lintas Pabrik union, or FBLP in Indonesia.  Welcome to episode two of the Clean Clothes podcast. I'm Febriana Firdaus.  This time, we're talking women workers – about the violence and harassment they often endure And some ways of building power and fighting back. In 2014 Dian's union joined with other organisations, to promote women's rights in a large industrial park in North Jakarta, Indonesia.  DIAN:There are two union, one women's organisation, and Jakarta Legal Aid, become one alliance in the women worker committee, to struggle against GBV, gender based violence. We have two programs, the first program is to install warning board that the industrial park is free from Gender Based Violence or sexual harassment. HOST:The warning board was a large sign that announced the industrial park was a zone free of gender-based violence and harassment.  It was part of a strategy to raise the profile and awareness of this as an issue for workers.  And of course, as a warning to any perpetrators.  DIAN:The industrial park, KBN Cakung, in North Jakarta, agreed to install the warning board in 2016 on November, it's the international day against women violence.  HOST:Dian also directed a documentary film, Angka Jadi Suara, which followed this effort.  The film shows the effort behind the campaign. This included lobbying the management of the industrial park, and the Ministry of Women Empowerment and Child Protection.  At the centre of the film though, is the workers – and the sexual harassment and gender-based violence they experience.  DIAN:There were one person, one woman, who want to tell the story. This women, my friend yeah, she has a trauma. The interview takes about five hours and we have to stop about one hour just to give her time to stop and then take a breath and then take a break. And after that I asked to her if she want to stop then we will stop. But she said that she will not stop because if not now, then when? And after the documentary finish the first person that we give the edited version is her.   HOST:The documentary had a number of public screenings, and media coverage.  It took the story beyond the industrial park, to a bigger audience.  The voices of women workers, are at the centre of the union's efforts.  In 2012 they established community radio station Marsinah FM.  The station is named after Marsinah, a female union leader murdered in 1993 under the Suharto dictatorship. DIAN:We know that as a women, the social construction always ask us to be silent and do not have any chance to share our opinion. We have to be brave enough to speak up our mind. The community radio teach us to speak up our mind in our studio. We have journalistic, journalism training. We encourage women workers to write their story. It increase women workers' confidence that they have ability to write, to tell the story and to be recognised by the community because they can speak their mind and share it in the social media.  HOST:Supporting women's leadership, in the union and the community, is the central focus. That includes Dian's friend, who told her story for the documentary film. DIAN:She now go to college. She have scholarship. And she built a house that poor children, they learn about theatre, art, and also about the school the education, and she look for scholarship for the children that want to continue their school.  HOST:Just last year, the FBLP merged with another union to become the All-Indonesia United Workers Confederation, or KPBI.  In the November Congress, Dian was elected chairperson. HOST:In Maseru, Lesotho, workers have been subjected to severe and extensive sexual harassment and sexual violence in the factories of global supplier, Nien Hsing.  An investigation by the US-based Worker Rights Consortium, from 2017 to 2019, documented the scale and nature of the abuse.  This led to a ground-breaking Enforceable Brand Agreement, with a program led by local unions and non-government organisations, to end the abuse.  Matthew Abud has this report. REPORTER:Lesotho has more than forty five thousand garment workers. It's the mainstay of the country's economy.  Around ten thousand work for Taiwanese company Nien Hsing, which owns five factories there.  In these Nien Hsing factories, middle management exploited their power over workers in multiple ways MOTHEBA:My name is Motheba Ramaema. I work as a shop steward. I've been working as a shop steward for a year, but I've been with the factory for three years now. Actually most of the, I could call it abuse, was actually done by supervisors. So they'd ask for favours with the impression if you give them certain favours, then they'd give you more overtime which means better pay. Another thing is that most of the supervisors here, they run loan shark kind of business. And then they'll make you loan money from them at a very high interest rate, claiming that if you loan money from them then you'll be eligible to qualify for overtime. And sometimes like if when we begin work, we are hired on a contractual basis. So they would actually sometimes ask for sexual favours, saying that if you give it up, then you will be employed full time.  SAM:My name is Sam Mokhele. I work for the trade union called National Clothing, Textile and Allied Workers Union. I'm the general secretary of the trade union. They even reported such cases to us as unions. And we took initiative of taking the matter to the police to intervene. But only to find that there were no investigations made thoroughly. The victims at some point, they end up not reporting such cases because they were lacking confidence having realised that some who have reported the incidences, were not properly addressed.  REPORTER:Media coverage of the abuse lists a cascade of terrible details – including of management watching incidents of rape of workers by supervisors on CCTV. US-based Worker Rights Consortium conducted the research that put the workers' stories and experiences into the public sphere.  WRC's Rola Abimourched explains. ROLA:We were commissioned to do an investigation of three factories owned by Nien Hsing. This commission was looking into just labour rights issues within those three factories. And so through that investigation we identified extensive pervasive gender based violence and harassment.  At first it was heartbreaking. I mean I think you read some of the testimony, you just can't get around it. You just have this culture of acceptance, you know there's no other reality but to accept that you could be a target of gender-based violence and harassment. So that was one reaction but I think another is sadly realising that this is not necessarily unique to the country, that we hear and have seen gender based violence and harassment be an issue in many other factories all over the world. I would say all the brands recognised that they did not want their brand to be associated with the type of abuse we had identified. And so that was definitely a motivating factor to find a solution. It was clear that none of their audits had caught this issue, and that there needed to be a comprehensive response and not the normal CSR response. I think the reputational risk was quite clear, and… I think I can stop there! REPORTER:The brands sourcing from Nien Hsing in Lesotho included Levi Strauss, The Children's Place, and Kontoor.  The demand was for an Enforceable Brand Agreement or EBA, between the brands, unions, and NGOs.  This means the brands are committed to supporting real measures to eradicate gender-based violence.  And they're legally liable if they don't follow through.  WRC, Solidarity Center, and others, helped provide the input and support that led to the design of the eventual EBA. SAM:We took a tour to US where we visited Fair Food Program. They were already working on a similar program so we went there for experience. We learned how they are operating, we learned how they are working with the brands, we learned how they are handling the cases. So we took that model to our country, and then conceptualised the model into our context.  ROLA:The Lesotho program includes, or established a independent monitoring entity that would investigate and reach remedy on cases of gender-based violence and harassment.  REPORTER:That entity is run by the unions and the NGOs.  Other key features are a popular education component, which includes two days' training on what Gender Based Violence and Harassment is, as well as how the EBA program operates. There's also a toll-free information line for workers to call, to ask any questions or talk through anything that they've experienced.   ROLA:And of course, there's a oversight committee that's made up of equal votes between the unions and the NGOs and the brand representatives, with a neutral chair, and then WRC has an observer status as does Nien Hsing on that committee.  SFX? REPORTER:But COVID, like just about everywhere else, has put this on hold.  At the time of production Lesotho was in its second lockdown.  But that doesn't mean nothing's changed in the Nien Hsing factories that are operating.  The scrutiny and pressure has made itself felt.  Motheba Ramaema again.  MOTHEBA:I could say like slightly. I want to put a bit of an emphasis on the slightly part. Things slightly changed. Because initially the supervisors were treating us like we are sex slaves. But now, because they know that we know our rights, they try to follow the proper channels when there's conflicts between me and my boss or between me and the big boss, you know. Because initially you'd just be told that you're fired. Now we know that if you do one-two-three, then that could lead to three warnings and then you could be fired. So now they communicate better with us, the treat us more like we are people. Other than earlier, when they used to treat us like we are animals. They haven't completely stopped but they have slightly come to realise that we are human as well.  REPORTER:This is changing the perceptions of some workers.  MOTHEBA:Actually I think workers are now more motivated to join the unions because they too have seen the slight changes that are there in the workplace. So now they see that the unions are actually here to help us. Because initially they thought unions were here to make money, because we have to pay a subscription fee. But now that they're seeing change, and now that we have training workshops and we tell them about their rights, and how to approach certain things, more people are now keen to actually join the union. It's just that now with this whole COVID pandemic, we don't really now have more time to actually talk, because everybody's now concentrating, let me do my work, let me be safe and go home. So I think after this whole pandemic, that's when we'll see a proper change.  HOST: Motheba Ramaema ending that report. Building up women's power to confront gender discrimination at work is a long road.  One union leader who's been walking that road is Rukmini, from the Garment Labour Union in Bangalore, southern India.  Harsha Vadlamani went to find out more.  REPORTER: The Garment Labour Union is a women-led trade union here in Bangalore, in southern India. Its office is bustling with something always on the go – meetings, training sessions for workers, or campaign planning. Probably all three.  I've come to meet Rukmini, the union's President and one of its founders.KAVERII've known her from 2016 so I think that's five years now.  REPORTER:My Kannada language skills are a bit limited – so Kaveri has come along too, to help out. Rukmini's a well-known figure now, leading campaigns for workers' rights, from Bangalore to international forums.  It's been a long journey that's led her to this work.  RUKMINI: [Original in Kannada] KAVERI:She was enrolled in school for three months after which she had to drop out, because her mother was the sole breadwinner in the family and her father used to drink and not take care of the family, so she had to help her mother in the field and also take care of the household chores.  REPORTER:Rukmini married at sixteen.  She says herself, she was too young to understand what that meant.  At first she thought leaving the village for Bangalore was an adventure.  After her first child, she realised the family needed more income.   HARSHA:Can you describe your first day at a garment factory? What was it like?  RUKMINI: [Original in Kannada] KAVERIWhen she started working she did make a lot of blunders which she laughs about even now. But then the whole day, the first day in the factory when she was told not to work, but to just work on the waste pieces, so she could get a hang of what the industry would be and what work she would have to do, so that's how she joined the garment factory.  RUKMINI: [Original in Kannada] KAVERIShe received around 750 Rupees and the day she received that she felt you know it was like a lot of money. And she was really excited because her husband received only 300 Rupees whereas she received around 750 so that was like a big achievement for her. And she did not know what to do with that money because it was huge! HARSHA:Rukmini, what was your first experience with the union? How did it happen? RUKMINI: [Original in Kannada] KAVERI:So initially when she joined with the garments there was a lot of harassment that workers had to face, they were verbally abused, scissors were thrown on them if they did not reach the production targets, the production targets were really high and they were not paid for the overtime work that they did. That is when Cividep in the year 2003 were distributing leaflets to workers in the garment factories saying they're organising a campaign or they're organising a training where workers could attend and understand the rights. And Rukmini did not know how to read it so the entire night she sat down to read and understand what was there in the leaflet that they have given to her. And when she realised that they were doing something for the benefit of the workers, she decided that she would attend this particular meeting and understand what the benefits are, understand the rules and policies. That is when Rukmini really heard the word union and understood what a union was and why a union is important.  REPORTER:After this meeting, Rukmini and others established a self-help group where women could learn about the rules, regulations, and entitlements for workers. This soon become something more formalised. Gender-based violence and harassment, was a big need from the very start.  KAVERI:There are cases of sexual harassment that happens in the factory but women don't really come forward because the moment the co-workers get to know that this has happened, you know the woman is treated in a really bad way. So they don't even share it with their family or with their husband or report it to the police station, because they feel that once the family gets to know, the neighbours, the co-workers get to know about this incident, the family would not allow them to work.  REPORTERThey founded the union – and then held a rally with around a thousand workers – the first time this had happened in the city.  Management tried do discourage her from working with the union. Rukmini says they tried to bribe her and launched a trumped-up investigation against her, which failed.  Her husband was also opposed.  RUKMINI: My husband told you not go to union, so many pressure in management, given lot of money. You take come home, you not go to union. I told my husband, I told you pressurise I not go to union, I give you divorce. I told my husband, my husband not told anything.  REPORTER: This was the first garment workers' union in the city since the industry first started – way back in the mid-seventies. RUKMINI: [Original in Kannada] KAVERI:In the year 2006 Rukmini started working as a full-time union activist. During this time she faced harassment by the male co-workers in the union. This made Rukmini realise that it was very important to form a women-led trade union because majority of the garment workers were women. In the year 2012, is when GLU, Garment Labour Union, a women-led trade union was started in Bangalore.  HARSHA:When you finally started GLU, what were the challenges that you faced?  RUKMINI: [Original in Kannada] KAVERI:So initially when they were part of another union they only worked as field activists. So they did not know how to interact or bargain with the management, or with the government or with the brands. So they found it very difficult. And during this period they took a lot of help from various organisations and NGOs to help them in drafting letters, drafting memorandums.  REPORTER:GLU was making its influence felt in policy.  RUKMINI: [Original in Kannada] KAVERI:In the year 2013, GLU was a part of the Minimum Board Wage Meeting which was organised by the government of Karnataka. The initial wages for the workers today is 9,500, but GLU is working towards making it mandate for the management to provide 21,000 as their monthly wages. The government also made a mandate that the eight hours work would be shifted to 12 hours work. GLU has fought against this announcement made by the government, and they've reduced the number of working hours from 12 to 8 hours now.  REPORTER:GLU's run other successful campaigns – for example, against a proposal to have women work night shift, which was then dropped.  The union now has eight thousand members.  Big challenges loom. India's government want to consolidate forty-four of its current labour laws, into just four.  This would badly affect worker wages, health and safety, and social benefits. It would also make it harder for unions like GLU to organise workers.  GLU's core strategy though, remains unchanged. RUKMINI: [Original in Kannada] KAVERI:Majority of the workforce in the garment factory is women, so it is very important that women folks take up leadership because only a woman can understand another woman's feelings and struggles. In the present scenario majority of the positions, higher positions like production manager, supervisors, are all being taken, all are men. So they wouldn't understand what a woman is going through, hence it's very important that women come forward and take up leadership.  RUKMINI: Together we can achieve anything.  HOST: Rukmini, ending that report by Harsha Vadlamani A major global effort towards outlawing gender based violence, is the ILO Convention 190 against Violence and Harassment.  Adopted in June 2019, it's now been ratified by three countries, Fiji, Namibia, and Uruguay. Italy's Parliament has also approved ratification.  Priscilla Robledo coordinates lobbying and advocacy for the Clean Clothes Campaign in Italy.  PRISCILLA:We had this one MP from the main centre-left party who's, she's very active on women issues and gender issues. She isn't really into labour rights as such but she's very much into the so-called civil rights. So her law proposal was filed on September 2019, and eventually in September 2020 the parliament kind of approved the authorisation to ratification with full unanimity of the chamber, which is pretty a success.  The knowledge and awareness about these topics in Parliament is there, but it's very scattered and belongs to just a very few people, typically women themselves, that really understand and appreciate the issues at stake. The majority of the senators who approved the legislation I think would think yeah, this is just an international convention that will benefit workers in the global south or in global supply chains. And this is also what the press rapporteur of the Senate has actually said, mentioning also the garment industry and of course this is because of our own advocacy upon him.  However though, this is also an issue for this country, Italy. The only data that we have are from the Institute of National Statistics, which in 2016 carried out the very first study on gender-based violence in the workplace. And this study found that two out of ten women in the workplace did experience violence and harassment of any sort. Eighty percent of them didn't report it, didn't defend themselves, and the reason is there are no means at the moment in this country that you can use for enforcing your rights.  C190 is just one step of a bigger puzzle. It's a lot more topical now that the EU is embarking on a process to eventually approve mandatory human rights due diligence legislation. Surely as a campaign we will focus on making sure that some gender, gender-based due diligence requirements will be included. But we know this isn't easy at all.  HOST:That's Priscilla Robledo from Clean Clothes Campaign in Italy. You'll hear more about mandatory human rights due diligence in the EU, in a later episode.  From EBAs, to the ILO convention, to building women's power in the trade union movement.  What does the Clean Clothes Campaign need to consider, on gender and gender-based violence? This is Sina Marx, from FEMNET in Germany. SINA:I think the Clean Clothes Campaign really need to address gender as a cross-cutting issue. I mean we do that since several years but to make it really strong and to really think of it in all areas of work that we are tackling. Because gender-based violence and harassment gets a very strong lobby since the adoption of the ILO convention, but gender is obviously is more than that. It also comes into force when looking at wages, when looking at occupational health and safety. So not say that gender is in all the topics but also say, gender is its own topic and we really want to bring this issue forward. Also looking at our own structures, are we giving it the attention that it needs. Are we addressing power relations within our own structures? Do the trade unions and partner organisations that we're working with, make it a priority within their work? If they don't, why not. I think that it's a very crucial point that trade unions not only in production countries in Asia for example, but also within trade unions in Europe, need to address the issue of hierarchies within their own structures. How can we support our partners in production countries to make gender a top priority but also how to, how are we able to support their struggles in order to bring for example the ILO convention to their national legislative bodies, how can we support the lobby and advocacy activities towards this? I think it's really the time now to make this a forerunner issue within our network.  HOST:That's Sina Marx.   And that's the end of our show.  Please send your ideas, feedback, and questions.  Email us at this address: podcast@cleanclothes.org. You can also see the email address on the podcast webpage. Matthew Abud produced this episode, with Anne Dekker, and the Clean Clothes Podcast team. Liz Parker, Tanne de Goei, and Johnson Chin-Yin Yeung. Steve Adam gave sound engineering support.  I'm Febriana Firdaus. See you for the next episode.  

In this episode, our contributors reflect on laws and regulations for holding brands and retailers accountable for violations of worker rights in the factories that supply them, including: Nayla Ajaltouni from Collectif Ethique sur L'Etiquette in France tells how campaigners succeeded in getting the first law protecting human rights in supply chains passed in France – and how this law might set a European precedent for stronger worker rights protection.  Nasir Mansoor from NTUF in Pakistan reflects on the experience of using legal mechanisms to hold KiK accountable for the Ali Enterprises fire.  Muriel Treibich from the CCC International Office introduces human rights due diligence and presents opportunities including the European Supply Chain. Scott Nova from WRC in the USA highlights the closing of a loophole means the section of the US Tariff Act that prohibits companies importing goods made with forced labour could be enforced.  Please tell us what inspired you about this show, and share your feedback, comments and questions, by emailing: podcast@cleanclothes.org  Speakers: Nayla Ajaltouni, Coordinator, Collectif Ethique sur L'Etiquette, FranceNasir Mansoor, General Secretary, NTUF (National Trade Union Federation), PakistanMuriel Treibich, Lobby and Advocacy Coordinator, Clean Clothes Campaign International Office, NetherlandsScott Nova, Executive Director, Worker Rights Consortium, USA  Host: Febriana Firdaus (febrianafirdaus.com) Sound Engineering Support: Steve Adam (www.spectrosonics.com.au)  Court of the Future performers: Free Theatre (www.freetheatre.com.au) Production: Matthew Abud with support from Anne Dekker Podcast Team: Johnson Ching-Yin Yeung, Liz Parker, Tanne de Goei Full Transcript JUDGE:Order! Order! I mean it – I will have order in this court! Now then. To the defendant.  Mr. Ralph Hermes Vuitton You may deliver your statement.  RHV: Thank you, Your Honour. May I say with great humility, I'm humbled by the privilege to address this court. Very humbled. Humblingly so. Because as everyone knows, we at Ralph Vuitton are a humble, ethical, caring, socially responsible, innovative brand ...and we pay record dividends! The simple fact is – we didn't know! And our promise is – we will do better! We can't know everything our suppliers do. It's unrealistic. We have thousands of them! We change them all the time! Some employees even work from home. Are we supposed to visit them too? I mean, what would happen to my exclusive trench coat in those neighbourhoods? It would be ruined.  JUDGE: Order! Come on now, let's have a little order here.Right. Now Mr. Vuitton. Please keep to the point.  RHV:Yes your Honour. To put it simply.Did we make the building a fire trap with no escape? No, we didn't. Did we ban the workers from organising together or cut their pay? No, it wasn't us. Can you blame me that women are constantly harassed in the workplace? That's outrageous! Let me finish with this point. Your Honour, could I say how stylish you would look in a bold red Faux Leather Coat. For you, it would be an affordable 175 Euros. But if we had to pay for all the things they propose? Why, it could go up to 176! We'd be bankrupt! Thank you, Your Honour.  JUDGE:And why are you giving me your business card, Mr Vuitton?  RHV: Just if you are interested in that Faux Leather Coat.  JUDGE: This is not a sales pitch, Mr. Ralph Hermes Vuitton. We're in a court of law. Do you understand?  HOST:Could that be the court-room of the future?  Where brands must prove that they take care of human rights, through their whole supply chain? I'm Febriana Firdaus. Welcome to episode three of the Clean Clothes Podcast.  Today we talk human rights due diligence, and making laws to keep brands honest. Human rights abuse includes stolen wages, sexual harassment, and union busting.  It has also cost many workers their lives.  This is Nasir Mansoor, General Secretary of the National Trade Union Federation or NTUF in Pakistan. NASIR:There was a tragedy in September 2012, where in a factory there was a fire and 260 workers died in that factory. And that factory was producing merchandise for a German brand, its name was KIK. So when we look into the law, even Pakistani law, European law, German law, we didn't get any space for the workers to go for filing of a case and make them accountable for it.  So in that context we get to know that we should have, not only in Pakistan but also in European Union there would be some kind of a law or some kind of a mechanism to make them account for. Unfortunately after filing a case in Dortmund against KIK in German court, after three years of hearings, the court verdict that on technically on Pakistani laws it was a time bar issue.  HOST: The push for human rights supply chain laws, has a long history. Trade Unions and NGOs campaigned on it for decades. This is Muriel Treibich, Lobby and Advocacy Coordinator for Clean Clothes Campaign MURIEL:Of course a lot of the initial efforts were pushed by NGOs and trade unions that highlighted really important cases and important situations where that would happen. And so for years they brought information, reports, they communicated, they campaigned about those issues. And progressively that led also to the international recognition that that was an issue, and that was something that international institutions, governments, the United Nations, had to look at.  In 2011 when you had the United Nations that published their first Guiding Principles on business and human rights. And what it says, is that first states have an obligation to ensure the respect of human rights, but that also companies have a responsibility to protect human rights. And that was let's say one of the first recognitions, and one of the biggest recognition that yes, international companies have a responsibility to protect human rights across their supply chain and not only in the companies and in the operations they fully own and they fully control.  The human rights due diligence, you have a number of steps that you have to do. First let's say you have to identify what are the risks in your supply chain, what are the potential negative impacts on human rights and labour rights that exist in your supply chain. Once you identify the risks and the negative impacts, then you have to take steps to seize, to make sure that those risks are stopped, or are prevented, or are mitigated. And then you have to track whether the measures you implemented are put in place, you have to communicate on that. And then you have to provide for remedies when appropriate.  Until today, except in France, we only have voluntary human rights due diligence. There is no obligation for companies to actually protect human rights like that and to use human rights due diligence to do it. And if they do not follow those principles, there are no legally-binding sanctions. And that's an obvious problem. If it's voluntary then actually most companies and I'm talking about Europe, most companies in Europe, including the large companies, are not doing human rights due diligence, are not actively working on protecting human rights, and for the few who do so, they actually do it on a really limited scope. So that's why we're talking now about mandatory human rights due diligence, because the objective is to make sure that companies are not doing it on their own decision, but that they have a legal obligation to do it and they can be sanctioned if they do not do it properly. HOST:So far, only France has passed a law on human rights due diligence, in supply chains.  Collectif ESE, or Collective Ethics Behind the Label, was central to that campaign.  Nayla Ajaltouni is the Collectif's Coordinator. NAYLA:I think everything changes when the UN elaborated and adopted the UN Guiding Principles, the Ruggie Principles, on business and human rights. And it was really the start of a big internal reflection at Collectif Ethique sur L'Étiquette where unions and NGOs and especially some of them, and as a coordinator I thought it was important to be able to analyse and be familiar with this framework and I proposed to the network to organise a big symposium at a national assembly around this question, different round tables. I think the fact that we at some point were all gathered in one same civil society platform, we already had as a common goal to focus on transnational companies and to make them respect the law, a law that we would have to build.  HOST:In 2012, France also elected the Socialist party to government.  That gave the campaign a real political opportunity. NAYLA: We identified MPs that would be committed enough to build legislation and we worked to mobilise civil society towards this new legislation. The second trigger was this terrible accident, this human-created disaster as Kalpona said, of the Rana Plaza. Because it created huge, of course it shocked everybody, and for us I often say, for the rights movement it was a shock but it was not a surprise. So we were prepared, our arguments were already there, our strategy was already there. We knew that we could sell this kind of law to the public as general-interest law and not something for NGOs or people abroad but really something of general interest, we can't, transnational companies can't decide on the lives of so many people without being accountable of anything.  We really managed to have a pool of and different kind of media and especially media read by public authorities and economic world on what this law on due diligence is. We also focused a lot on outing the economical world, federation of employers and federation of big companies because they were really working in a very secretive way. Their lobbying was really strong and they had direct access to the power, and we managed and we try to make them express publicly why they are against such laws. And for the first time the biggest federation was obliged to say, to speak about their position in main newspaper and this had an important impact especially on MPs.  HOST:Companies used familiar arguments to oppose these laws. MURIEL:For the private sector the first concern they were raising was the cost. It will cost too much. It will be too difficult. How can you ask us to make sure that everything in our supply chain is human rights and labour rights compliant. It's too big, we don't have control over those entities. So their first reaction was to point out the cost and the complexity.  When it comes to the complexity in the supply chain, especially in the garment sector, it's not something that just comes up. Garment supply chains are not natural occurrence. It's something that companies actually create and think about, and that was a conscious business choice by the companies. So they created the complexity, and now they're complaining that their supply chains are too complex to control them. HOST: The French campaign was successful – the law passed in 2017. But it also fell short. Nayla says it is just one step towards change. NAYLA:Let's say four years campaigning with ups and downs, with a lot of euphoric moments and a lot of very depressive moments.  It's not the text civil society had campaigned for. There's not criminal liability for example. But we also knew that we were working on a compromise.  A small legal revolution as a first step. The objective for us was to make a breach in transnational impunity, and to enlarge this breach at the European level. But we know that the European wouldn't work if one of the important countries, and France hosts one third I guess of the biggest European companies, had this extreme responsibility to start building a law.  So we even published document with the weaknesses of the French law and lessons learned, that we spread already to the Network, to the MPs, to the MEPs. All our advocacy work has now started to encourage to build on those lessons learned and the Commission of course not to repeat the weaknesses of the French law, and to have a much more ambitious directive on duty of care or duty of vigilance.  MURIEL: It was really really significant that France passes such a law. It gives a precedent. It shows that it's possible. That you can impose obligations on companies on those issues and that other countries in Europe, Europe itself, and outside of Europe, can also impose similar obligations on their companies.  The whole argument that we didn't know, it was too far away, we could not have imaged, those arguments would not play any more. That actually companies have an obligation to know, they have an obligation to look for the information and that's extremely important.  HOST:Like Nayla says, the French law is a first break in corporate impunity. The European Commission plans to debate Supply Chain legislation later this year.  Other campaigns are pushing to open this break further. That includes survivors from the Ali Enterprise fire.  Nasir from Pakistan's NTUF again. NASIR:Because of no legal and legislation and in the European union and especially in Germany, the brands get some kind of sigh of relief. They can't understand and they can't learn the lesson from it, but they think they can scott-free. But if there would have been a law they must be punished.  One of our victims' association chairperson, Saeeda Khatoon whose son was also died in that factory, she went to Belgium, she went to European Union, she talked with the different political parties, in the Germany she also talked with the different political parties and Trade Unions and pressed for legislation or a law as to make the German and the European companies accountable for whatever the crime they committed anywhere in the globe.  HOST:In early February, Germany published a draft Supply Chain Law. A vote on the law is promised for this year.   BAILIFF: Calling the next witness! Please state your name and profession. GA:I'm Ganya Adil. I'm a tailor. And I represent the union on my floor. JUDGE: Please tell the court the nature of your complaint.GA: I have many complaints. Firstly, our factory is dangerous. There's material piled up everywhere ready to burn, and the escape routes are locked. The boss says don't worry about fire. Would he say the same thing to the workers who died in the Ali Enterprises fire in Karachi? Secondly, our wages are barely enough to feed my family. Judge, my little girl was top of her class last year but now I can't afford to send her to school. I ask, would Mr. Vuitton let that happen to his daughter? It's not just that our pay is too low. Sometimes they pay us late. Sometimes not at all. The boss doesn't tell us anything.  JUDGE: Are you saying the brand knew about all this?GA: They don't want to know. We didn't get to talk to them anyway. My union tried to complain. But the boss, he threatened me. He came so close I could smell his breath. It smelled worse than the pollution from the factory.Your Honour, he said the police would come. It didn't feel safe. So I went to my aunt's village for a while. It was amazing there. Their factory used to be like ours. But now they are all getting better wages, and the factory is safe. My aunt told me about the new Supply Chain Laws, and about this court. I always thought the law was just for the rich and the companies always won. But you seem a nice judge.  JUDGE: Ms. Adil, please stick to the point. We're not after compliments here.  GA: Thank you, I've finished, Your Honour. But may I ask. Do you know who does your robes? And where they come from? You should find out about that!  HOST:Europe holds the clearest promise, for human rights Supply Chain laws. The United States does not have laws like this one on the table. But change might still be coming.  Scott Nova is Executive Director of the Worker Rights Consortium. SCOTT:The US Tariff Act has always prohibited the importation specifically of goods made with forced labour. But for most of the life of that law there was a loophole that prevented it from being enforceable. And that loophole was eliminated during the last years of the Obama administration, and over the ensuing, now going on five years, there has been an attempt within the US Government at an administrative level to begin to enforce that law. The big question is how serious will that enforcement push be. Now one area where we're seeing the relevance of that legal provision very clearly is in the forced labour crisis in the Uighur region of China. And because about one fifth of the world's cotton is grown in that region, the brands and retailers around the world who sell cotton garments are neck-deep in this forced labour crisis.  The standard the US Government is applying is this. If the company should have known, either did know or should have known, that forced or trafficked labour was used, then that company and the executives who made the relevant decisions, have broken US Criminal as well as Civil Law, and the executives could be prosecuted, convicted, and go to jail. If that happens, it would send shock waves through corporate America. And if the executives of these corporations understand that they can be held criminally accountable, they can go to jail, for the ways in which they exploit workers in their supply chains, well that's a night-and-day change from the regime that's prevailed up until now. And so it would be very interesting to see, to say the least, whether the US Government actually enforces its laws and changes that culture in ways that could have a very profound impact on the lives of workers all across the globe.  If it's illegal to import a product made with forced labour, why is it legal to import a product made through other abuses of fundamental worker rights? Why is it legal to import a product made in a factory where the workers are subjected systematically to sexual harassment, and have to have sex with supervisors in order to keep their jobs? Why is it legal to import goods from a factory where every time the workers try to organise a union the managers threaten to kill them? Why is it legal to import a product from a factory where the employer systematically underpays workers relative to the legal minimum wage? Right now it is legal. But it's very difficult to defend that status quo. The vast majority of people in the US, ordinary people in the US, would agree that that should be illegal. And once that discussion begins to happen, there is the potential that that discussion will take off and capture public interest and that you might see real momentum towards change. Now if that happens there'll be enormous pushback from corporations and their lobby. But if that battle happens, it's not a foregone conclusion that the corporations will win. Right now that discussion isn't happening, but I think that it will begin to happen in the not-too-distant future.   HOST:Campaigners know supply chain laws will not fix everything.  But they can help change the balance. MURIEL:It's one more tool. The objective is to fill out the gap. But that law will of course have to work in conjunction and supporting other developments. And for, let's say for instance, if supply chain law give the obligation of companies to make sure that they cannot make profits out of human rights violations any more, then that could also help develop stronger, give an incentive also to governments to develop stronger national laws or stronger enforcement of national laws. With such a law for instance, companies will have an obligation to engage with stakeholders on the risks and on the negative impacts and to show that actually when they did, when they have done their assessment on the situation, it's not only the company that did it on their own, but they also engaged with the people affected or impacted by the business operations. And I think that obligation, that expectation that stakeholders need to be involved, may also support the fact that companies would now have a big obligation to ensure that freedom of association and collective bargaining are better respected in the supply chain. NASIR:There is no change and there is no behavioural or practising change from the brands, everything is going as usual. So that's why we think that there should be some kind of legislation and some kind of a mandatory things binding by the law, that can be work. When the trade union or the labour movement is a weak one, then it will more dependent on the laws and the instruments like that, yeah? We use that one, these instruments to cope with the situation. This is not the ideal situation for us. And we understand that every time these can't work. But still we put pressure through these instruments on them, workers will get some kind of a sigh of relief and some kind of a weapon in their hand to whenever there's a situation arise they can use that one, that instrument and that kind of a weapon.  So I think that there are a number of multi-dimensional campaigns and the movements and the strategies to get workers rights and worker rights be protected. Organisation is the one aspect, another one is international solidarity from the pro-worker organisation and the working class, and then we have some kind of a law, it might be a local one, international, or the regional laws also. All these kind of framework can help the workers to get some kind of leverage to resolve their issues.   RD: This is an S.P.I.N. News Flash and I'm Rush Daley In breaking news we have a verdict in the Ralph Vuitton case. Our reporter Eva Tru is at the scene. Eva, tell us what's happened. ET: Yes, Rush, the court has made its decision and it's not what Ralph Vuitton was hoping. The company has to fix workplace safety, and make sure workers are paid the right wages. They also must allow the workers to organise freely. Vuitton insisted he never knew what was happening, so he wasn't to blame. The Judge's verdict was familiar for anyone following these cases. She said Vuitton had to know – and if he didn't, it's on him. The law makes it quite clear that companies must know what's going on with their suppliers, and also show the public that they know this. Know and Show – we keep hearing that these days. RD: It looks like Vuitton is more Show than Know. ET: You could certainly say that Rush. Vuitton said it was like taking the shirt off his back. Although, we know it's probably more like a couple of cheap cufflinks. Rush, I have the star witness with me here, Ganya Adil. Ganya, you must be very happy with this decision. GA: Yes, thank you very much, we're very happy. It gives us a chance. We don't expect our bosses to easily give us everything we won today. But now we can fight for our rights with the law behind us. ET: It looks like your friends want to celebrate with you. GA: Yes, we will have a big, big feast tonight! You should come! ET: Thank you, Ganya. Finally, is there anything you'd like to say to Ralph Vuitton? GA: Mr. Vuitton is welcome to eat with us too. And if he needs a new shirt for his back, we're happy to make him one. But only for a fair price.   HOST:Who can tell, who might appear in this court of the future.  It might be Ralph Vuitton. Or Zara Lauren. Or Levi Boss.  But maybe it is getting closer. That's the end of our show. Please email your ideas, feedback, and questions at this address: podcast@cleanclothes.org. You can also see the email address on the podcast webpage. Matthew Abud produced this episode, with Anne Dekker, and the Clean Clothes Podcast team. Liz Parker, Tanne de Goei, and Johnson Chin-Yin Yeung. Steve Adam was on sound engineering support – and the sound for the Court of the Future.  The Court of the Future was performed by Free Theatre. I'm Febriana Firdaus. See you next time.  

How can we get fair pay in workers' pockets, and replace poverty wages with a real living wage? What new tools can our campaigns use?In this episode: Reflections on how low wages help trap workers as much as bonded labour (Tola Mouen, CENTRAL, Cambodia)  A research project starts gathering wage slip data across several countries, in a step to hold brands accountable for the pay their workers receive (Anne Bienias, CCCIO; Martua Raja Siregar, Garteks, Indonesia)  The EU Directive on Minimum Wages falls well short of what's needed, but still provides campaign and negotiation opportunities (Štefica, Garment Worker; Mario Iveković, Novi Sindikat; Nikola Ptić, Regional Industrial Trade Union, Croatia)  Activists in European production countries learn from the experience in Asia, as they define what a living wage should be across borders (Bojana Tamindzija, CCC Serbia, Artemisa Ljarja, CCC Germany)  Thoughts on how a living wage is essential to tackling globalisation (Ashim Roy, Mill Mazdoor Panchayat & AFWA, India) Please tell us what inspired you about this show, and share your feedback, comments and questions, by emailing: podcast@cleanclothes.org  If you want to know more about the Europe Floor Wage, including its methodology, you can find that here, and in even more detail here.Speakers: Anne Bienias, Clean Clothes Campaign International Office, Amsterdam Martua Raja Siregar, Garteks Trade Union, Indonesia Štefica, Garment Worker, Croatia  Mario Iveković, President, Novi Sindikat Trade Union, Croatia  Nikola Ptić, Regional Industrial Trade Union, Croatia Bojana Tamindzija, Clean Clothes Campaign, Serbia Artemisa Ljarlja, Clean Clothes Campaign, Urgent Appeals Coordinator, Germany Ashim Roy, Asia Floor Wage Alliance International Secretariat, India Host: Febriana Firdaus (febrianafirdaus.com)Field Reporters: Petra Ivsic and Aca VragolovicSound Engineering Support: Steve Adam (www.spectrosonics.com.au) Producer: Matthew Abud Clean Clothes Podcast Team: Anne Dekker, Johnson Ching-Yin Yeung, Liz Parker, Tanne de Goei Full Transcript TOLA:Even the law, even the convention of ILO, mention that people working 8 hours per day and they should, they should be entitled to the decent living standard with human dignity. We talk with the workers, no single worker work, in our experience work only 8 hour per day and then enjoy with the decent living standard. Visibly we see that they have to force themselves to work overtime. Even you are not well enough, you are sick. And then if you just complain, you just make the complaint, they may frame up you with any criminal cases in the courts. So this is happening. So wage for me, as I said, it's a key issue that put the people into the modern-day slavery. Forced labour. They don't lock you by the key but they lock you by the system.  HOST:That's Tola Moeun, founder of the worker rights NGO CENTRAL in Cambodia. Today we're talking about workers' pay.  How to use data to make the reality of poverty wages transparent.  And ways to campaign for a living wage. TOLA:The supplier always say we cannot pay higher living wage or minimum wage because the brand just pay them low price, but we don't know how much the brand paid to the supplier because the business agreement between the brand and the supplier is quite confidential, so it is not transparent enough and then the brand does not disclose, even some brand do not disclose their supply list so we don't know, and then the brand make an excuse saying ok they do not have much leverage to pressure their supplier because they have a small percentage of order either from the country or either from the individual factory.  The business agreement between the brand and the supplier, should be transparent. We know that some information they should hide, but I think the export country should also consider about the ethical information act, so the brand will not be free in terms of providing a fake information to the consumers or to its own government in terms of the situations of the workers where they're producing the clothes. I know that in Norway for example they had introduced already the ethical information act, which hold their business or private sector be accountable in providing the accurate or real information to consumers, transparency in terms of throughout the supply chains.  HOST:Welcome to the show. I'm Febriana Firdaus. Making supply chains more transparent, is a key campaign tool. The fashionchecker.org website, is a step towards this.  It matches brands with their supplier factories, so consumers and campaigners, can see where clothes are made.  But this does not show factory conditions, including how much suppliers pay their workers  To try and change this, a recent Fashion Checker project began collecting worker wage slips in several countries.  Anne Bienias is from the Clean Clothes Campaign's International Office. ANNE:We can't just go out and campaign and ask for brands to pay something because they will always say they're already doing that, or that it's not as bad as we're saying. So we need real data, we need real evidence to show that we are right and that workers have the right to earn more. So it might seem like just a small part, but it's very important for our credibility also as a Network that our campaigns are fact-based or data-based.  HOST:Martua Raja Siregar is from the Garteks trade union in Indonesia.  His union was part of the research.  He says getting wage slips from workers can be difficult.  RAJA:For in the field, it's some of the workers is afraid that their name will leak to the company, and some workers also afraid that the name of the company will be give to the brands and they scared that the brands say that this company is not good and then they stop the orders, it will be also impact to the workers. It's also difficult for us actually to expose the name of the workers and also expose the name of the company directly if we put it in public. ANNE:We told the workers we would not publish the name of the factory. But it's then impossible to make the connection to the brand, and that's ultimately what you want to do, because you want to hold the brand accountable for the poverty wage that they're paying. It might be that we do eventually publish the name of the factory if we know that that worker is no longer working in that factory for example, because it's usually workers that we know. But yes, it's very tricky and the last thing we want to do as a campaign is of course to put workers at risk.  HOST:The research gathered data in several countries.  ANNE:In some countries the wage slips were a little bit more reliable than in other countries. So you don't know if that was for a month, or for four weeks which is a little bit different, or for six weeks or whatever. But it was still good to collect the wage slips because it's just a piece of proof that you then have because often also what was stated on the wage slip was very low. So if you have that piece of evidence a brand can never claim that what they're paying is much more than that, because they're not.  HOST:The project has made a start.  It has also identified problems to solve. RAJA:So the problem is how to update the data and also to gather more payslip from the workers. And not only for Indonesia but for other country that also supply to the same brand, to compare the difference between the wages between in the suppliers of the same brand.  We are thinking about how to create a tool also that workers can directly contribute to the survey, to the data gathering, without the third persons like the surveyors. We are still looking at how it will be done, because like we said in the beginning the confidentiality of the information it's really need to be put in the first place.  ANNE:I think it's very important that workers feel some sort of ownership because it's their livelihoods and it's their data. So it should be easier for workers to for example to just take a photo of their payslip, upload that in a secure space, where we are then able to clean it as my colleague would say so that the worker can never be identified based on the phone that they took the photo with. And then I think there is no way but to have a middle person who would then need to analyse the data and do something with it. Because the risk is just that if we go too fast and don't have any check in between, that then eventually the data is not worth anything anymore because we can't compare it then. And what you want to do is then compare, being able to compare data across countries, preferably from the same brand even.  HOST:The main challenge is clear. For real transparency on wages, we need more data.  It's a big job, and needs lots of collaboration.  RAJA:This also one of the important points you see. Because it's not only work for one trade union, all the trade unions actually have the same objective and we have to collaborate each others. So it's will also need to open the mind, to open up the willingness of each organisation to also contribute on doing the data. And I hope that all the organisations that also involved in the Clean Clothes network will in the end will contribute to the data collections.  ANNE:So that's the kind of network engagement that I think we're looking for. And also for ways to make it easier for unions who might have wage data lying around in their offices, make it easier for them to also share it. So I think it's that, those kinds of things that we need to think about in the next couple of years. Because it's so it's so important to have this data and to be able to use it for campaigns, instead of for every campaign having to do a research before you can start campaigning. So I think if we just find a way to, or maybe different ways, maybe we don't need one way but multiple ways in which data can come into this data base then I think that would be awesome.  HOST:Data on wages is one important campaign tool. But better data capacity, can also help many different campaigns. ANNE:We are noticing in our office here in Amsterdam but I think in the whole network, that data is becoming more and more important and that over the years we have collected so many important data points that we are now trying to digitalise and combine them. Then at some point I think it is a really powerful thing to have at hand, because it will make also our work so much faster because now often we rely on information coming from the workers, but of course if there is a crisis at a factory, an urgent appeal going on, the union leader often is busy with something else than talking to us. But if we have historical data already somewhere where you just type in the name of the factory and a list of brands comes out, and if you just have all that information at hand I think that would be very relevant for us but I think now it's still something that we're developing.  HOST:That's Anne Bienias from the Clean Clothes Campaign's International Office. Across Asia, minimum wages are far below what workers need, for a dignified life.  But in producing countries in Europe, the difference is even bigger.  The average minimum wage, is only thirty per cent of a living wage.  The European Union has a draft Directive on minimum wages for the bloc. From Croatia, journalists Aca Vragolovic and Petra Ivsic have this report. ŠTEFICAMy name is Štefica and I work in the garment industry. I worked in two factories that went out of business. Now I'm working in the third and we'll see what will happen next...  REPORTERWe met Štefica at the canteen in her factory.  Her situation is typical here in Croatia – and in many producing countries in Europe.  Most workers earn a minimum wage that barely covers the cost of living.  ŠTEFICA:During last 30 years my salary has gone up very little, by almost nothing. At the moment it's the same as the Croatian minimum wage. It's really hard to cover expenses with that, you can pay for utilities and maybe some food, but you can't afford anything except more and more work. I work six days a week, including for no pay on Saturday. If I need a day off, I have to explain why I want a day off and where I am going, and so on... REPORTER:The European Union has targeted some level of wage protection, for all workers in the bloc. In October last year, it published its proposed Directive on Adequate Minimum Wages.  This would establish a legally-binding framework on minimum wage levels across the EU.  But it bases its calculations, on a combination of existing legal minimum wages, and median wage levels. That means it ignores what's needed, for a living wage.  Mario Iveković is president of the Trade Union Novi Sindikat.  MARIO:I'm not satisfied with criteria in this directive because I think that minimum wage has to be living wage… If there is no this connection, then we will say it is better something than nothing, but we will not be satisfied, because it's really not enough for workers in European Union. REPORTER:The EU Minimum could be so low, it wouldn't really help workers like Štefica.  The level in Croatia would be four hundred and fifty one Euros per month That's only forty-six Euros more, than the current minimum wage. The estimated living wage for the country is around three times that, at almost one thousand two hundred and fifty Euros.  The EU Directive clearly lets workers down. But Croatia's government lets them down even more. They are sceptical towards directive which actually sets minimum wage on very low level. However the proposed EU Directive might still provide tools to help change the situation.  It also includes measures on freedom of association, and collective agreements for workers.  It says at least seventy per cent of all workers, should be part of these agreements.  But the Croatian government insists workers should have the right to not join a trade union.  Unionists say changes to the labour law mean membership has dropped, from sixty-five per cent to forty-two per cent over twenty years.  Nikola Ptić is from the Regional Industrial Trade Union. NIKOLA:In Croatia, for the last thirty years the number of trade union members is in constant decline and the same case is in textile industry. Workers are unionized mainly in companies that are owned by domestic entrepreneurs. In textile, clothing, leather and footwear factories, which are owned by foreigners, union organizing is, with a few exceptions, almost impossible. Although they never say this publicly, employers find a way to let workers know that union organizing is not an option.REPORTER: Employers spread the word within their factories that those who join any union are not wanted. Štefica says workers get the message – especially if they're on short-term contracts ŠTEFICA:Nowadays in the garment industry very few people trust a union. I mean, it is not that they don't trust a union, but they don't believe it's powerful enough to stand up to employers and the government. The government doesn't allow us to fight for our rights, to stop being underpaid. REPORTER:Mario Iveković is not optimistic that the Directive's measure on collective bargaining, will lead to big changes. But even with the limitations, he thinks the Directive might provide some opportunities.  MARIO:The reason why we supported the establishing of minimum wage on European level is not this part which speaks about mandated collective bargaining and freedom of association, because we already have it in our laws and in international laws, but it's not respected and it will not be respected again. But, if we will establish minimum wage in each country then we will have higher start in negotiation for collective bargaining. Today, in all companies where we negotiate we start from really low level of salaries, then we have to fight for salaries and we don't have enough energy or strength to get other things which are also really important for workers. If we will have better level of minimum wage, then our strength in collective bargaining will be on higher level for sure, and it is a reason why we really think that we need minimum wage, because otherwise we will lose lot of energy on just minimum wages which are existing today.  REPORTER:Other campaigners say that if the EU sets a minimum wage, it can open the discussion about a real living wage. In other words, it can be a campaign tool in the longer term.  ŠTEFICA: If we had a collective agreement, then the situation would be completely different. The employer could be pressured into raising this lousy salary, at least slightly. We should organize and put an end to this situation. It's time for change! REPORTER:With Petra Ivsic, this is Aca Vragolovic  HOSTThe Asia Floor Wage has been a powerful tool in the campaign for decent wages. It uses a simple but powerful method, to define what a living wage should be, across national borders.  That covers the wage a family needs, to live a dignified life. Now Europe has its own Floor Wage, using the same methods. Matthew Abud has this report.  REPORTERThe Europe Production Focus Group first started looking at calculating a living wage for the region back in 2014. The group is an alliance of Clean Clothes Campaign and other organisations, focused on the garment-production countries in east, south-east, and central Europe. The reasons why a living wage is needed, are familiar.  REPORTERBojana Tamindzija is with the Clean Clothes Campaign in Serbia.  BOJANAThere is kind of competition between this countries who will attract more so-called foreign investment which is widely used by brands. And also it's common that our state is giving subsidies to brands to come and open the factories or sub-contract some factories here. For example it's ten thousand Euros for one working place which means, we calculated it, that brands have employers, workers completely free with the gross salary for almost three years. So that means like pure pure profits, that it's even cheaper than in Asia because it's for free.  REPORTERThe Asia Floor Wage Alliance was deeply engaged with all stages of developing the Europe Floor Wage.  They worked with the Europe Production Focus Group to apply the methods to calculate this.  But differences between the two regions are significant. Artemisa Ljarja is Clean Clothes Campaign Urgent Appeal Coordinator in Germany, and was heavily involved in the Europe Floor Wage work  ARTEMISAThe prices of goods, the prices of utilities, and the prices of houses are much higher in this region than in Asian production countries. And this comes because many of them are also members of the European Union, which means that they have to somehow standardise these prices. And in many cases standardisation of these prices led to an increase of the prices especially in the housing market and in the utilities.  REPORTERThe workforce often varies greatly between countries as well.  In Ukraine for example, workers are often older, while in other countries such as Albania, they are largely younger. But these differences didn't affect the relevance of the Asian Floor Wage methodology – its strengths were clear. This included using the cost of food as an indicator to calculate overall living costs.  As in Asia, this was set at three thousand calories per person per day.  Rather than rely on official statistics, field research confirmed what this would really cost workers. Other features of the Asia Floor Wage methodology were also key.  ARTEMISAIt's a highly-feminised industry and women are like sometimes in their household the only breadwinner. They also are in charge of the reproductive work, taking care of the elders, of a partner, of children. So we wanted to factor in also the reproductive work of women, and the Asian Floor Wage Alliance methodology, with this like family approach towards a living wage, allows for that.  REPORTERThis means the living wage is calculated for the needs of a family of two adults and two children.  Some costs varied by location.  In the end, the Europe Floor Wage has two slightly different levels, covering two different groups of countries in the region.  This is measured in purchasing power parity – meaning, how much goods cost in a given country, in their US dollar equivalent. It comes to 2,640 US dollars for one group, and 1,980 US dollars for another. You can find a link to more detail on this and other elements, on the episode website.  The Europe Floor Wage report was adopted in March 2020.  But defining how much is needed for a living wage, is only the start.  BOJANAFor most of the countries, actually the living wage as a concept is completely unknown. Now when we are introducing Europe Floor Wage, we are also introducing the concept of a living wage. That is the higher difficulty that we are facing now actually. You are presenting the concept of the living wage as such, and then you are also presenting the concrete numbers for the region and for specific countries.  REPORTERArtemisa says it's not just about explaining the Europe Floor Wage.  Some campaigners also struggle to accept it as feasible.  ARTEMISAThe main difficulty that we have so far, is that this huge gap between minimum wages and living wages, makes the Europe Floor Wage seen as something unattainable. A real utopic aim, according to many stakeholders. So our biggest challenge at the beginning is to conquer the narrative in order to gain legitimacy with this tool. By conquering the narrative I mean by reaching out to different stakeholders, first and foremost trade unions. They are the most sceptical. It's not that they are not sympathetic to the methodology and to the fact that they would have a figure, but they are not sure whether they would not look themselves ridiculous by placing this as a demand.  REPORTERThis work already started in Serbia late last year.  Here's Bojana once more. BOJANAWe organised two round tables for trade unions, CSO representatives and independent media representatives, and also we called from political parties and movements, progressively oriented. And we present them, and the reactions were very surprisingly positive.  REPORTERBojana says they began promoting the idea of a living wage even before the floor wage was finalised. BOJANASince 2017 actually we speak about that and we try to have like kind of low profile campaign mentioning the word living wage and our translation of it. And first reactions from trade unions was that is too high, and from workers also that is too high. But we now have progress, where in one factory producing for western brands there is demand to increase wage that workers are receiving to the level of the average wage in Serbia which is two times higher. And this is the most political and bravest demand ever. And they use our benchmark, they said ok living wage is like this, we need two thirds of it.  REPORTERMaking this change happen isn't only about promoting the idea of a living wage as a human right. And it's not only about defining what this wage should be.  There are other challenges too.  ARTEMISAIn the Eastern European and South-Eastern European production countries the idea of a collectivity has lost its notion. Because it was so used, worn out, during the Communist time, that once you mention this idea, yeah but together you can do something, like the collective is strong, they associate it with the way they were collectivised beforehand immediately. It's a bitter sensation. But also in the ground, many of the workforce now is in some countries is pretty young, so they have no information of what a trade union is, no concept, no notion about it. They don't even know the labour code, or what a payslip looks like. So there is I think a need to do double work in order to just inform the workforce.  BOJANAAnd our idea is to form a platform that will campaign, I'm speaking now about Serbia, for a living wage. It's just at the very beginning, the reactions are positive, we think that there is a lot of great experts actually that we can benefit from, that they are willing to help, and that we are also offering, as I said, as we said to all the trade unions we are offering you with this living wage we are offering you a tool. So you can do with this whatever you want, but you can first of all use it in negotiation for a minimum wage, or for collective bargaining or for whatever you want. So we think that it will be successful but we'll see. HOST:Bojana Tamindzija ending that report. What's the next step, in campaigns for a living wage?  Ashim Roy is from the Asia Floor Wage Alliance International Secretariat. ASHIM:The first step of universalising the idea of the living wage I think is already happening. Because we have moved from Asia to Europe. What is important is that as this idea gets to Africa, to Latin America, the idea of a living wage for a global economy, which is robust enough, comparable enough, useful enough as a concept in all countries, in all situations, has become a very important element.  The COVID crisis has shown that there's hardly any surplus of savings in the workers. Most of the time the workers are in debt. So from a social insurance or social security point of view if you keep the workers' wage at the level of poverty level constantly, for years and years, essentially you are creating a debt environment, and not an environment where workers have some savings through which they can adjust to hard times. And the moment there's a crisis like this, and this might happen again and again in the future, a large section of the working population will fall immediately below the poverty line. And that will bring serious consequences both for the family, and the society where such a drop takes place, and the state to respond to the health crisis and the social crisis and may lead to starvation if it gets acute and there's no government support.   I think the global alliance, CCC, Asia Floor Wage, many other groups, have all demanded that there should be some kind of wage assurance, some kind of contribution from the big brands towards mitigating this crisis that the workers are going through in this COVID phase.  One other thing I want to add here and this is very important from the sustainability and the larger ecological questions that the world is facing, there are very strong research papers which have shown that it is the cheapening of the costs, or the cheapening of the labour costs of the garments, that have increased an excess of cheap fast fashion. To the extent that almost thirty percent of that fast fashion are actually a waste. And so as you increase or make the global production chains of the garment industry adaptable to this living wage, you might reduce a bit of the total quantum of the garment use. That will actually mean a win-win situation, both for the workers, and for the industry, and for the environmentally sustainable world that we want to all live in.  Now we have to build up a fair amount of a narrative globally to be able to show that this is actually a concept that will hold good. And I think the garment industry being the most mobile of the industries in the sense that historically it has evolved the most, the one that has shifted from one country to another, if it comes and animates from the demands and the aspirations and the movement of the garment workers, I think that will be an historical contribution of the garment workers for the living wage debate. There is no way of addressing globalisation without coming to the idea that there is a legitimate, feasible, and universal idea of a living wage. HOST:That's Ashim Roy, ending our show.  This is the last show for a while. We'll be back in April with four more episodes.  We'll talk about China, digital campaigns, and home-based workers. But what else do you think we should talk about?  We really want to get your suggestions and ideas. And your feedback! So remember, please email us at podcast@cleanclothes.org.  That address is on the podcast webpage too. Matthew Abud produced this episode, with Anne Dekker, and the Clean Clothes Podcast team. Liz Parker, Tanne de Goei, and Johnson Chin-Yin Yeung. Sound engineering support is by Steve Adam  I'm Febriana Firdaus. See you next time.   

Formalise It! Rights for All Workers How can we expand rights to all garment workers, no matter where they work – in factories or their own homes, or as refugees or migrants far from their country of origin?  In this episode: How workers from Myanmar fought for the pay they were owed, from a factory in Mae Sot, Thailand (Brahm Press, MAP Foundation) Some of the challenges faced by migrant workers in Thailand, and what support is needed (Reiko Harima, Mekong Migration Network) The story of Hussain, a refugee garment worker in Turkey How home-based workers – mostly working in the garment sector – have got organised over several decades, and some of their wins (Janhavi Deva, HomeNet International; Zehra Khan, Home Based Women Workers Federation; Poonsap Tulaphan, Foundation for Labour and Employment Promotion) Building collaboration between home-based worker and other worker rights supporters (Marlese von Broembsen, WIEGO)  Please tell us what inspired you about this show, and share your feedback, comments and questions, by emailing: podcast@cleanclothes.org  Speakers: Brahm Press, MAP Foundation, Thailand Reiko Harima, Mekong Migration Network, Japan Hussain, Turkey Mariam Danishjo, Turkey Janhavi Deva, HomeNet International, India Zehra Khan, Home Based Women Workers Federation, Pakisan Poonsap Tulaphan, Foundation for Labour and Employment Promotion Marlese von Broembsen, Women in Informal Employment Globalising and Organising  Host: Febriana Firdaus (febrianafirdaus.com)Field Reporters: Petra Ivsic and Aca VragolovicSound Engineering Support: Steve Adam (www.spectrosonics.com.au) Producer: Matthew Abud Clean Clothes Podcast Team: Anne Dekker, Johnson Ching-Yin Yeung, Liz Parker, Tanne de Goei Full Transcript HOST:Welcome to the show, in our second instalment of the Clean Clothes Podcast.  I'm Febriana Firdaus.  Today we're talking about rights for all workers – meaning migrant workers. Refugee workers. Home-based workers.  Workers who might not have all the right documents, or who might be hidden from view.  Sometimes governments and employers, don't see them as workers at all.  But they still demand their rights.  Mae Sot is in Thailand near the Myanmar border.  Refugees and migrant workers from Myanmar, have lived there for decades.  Now it has hundreds of garment factories that depend on migrant workers.  They're often underpaid to an extreme degree.  The Kanlayanee factory there made clothes for famous brands: Starbucks, Disney, NBC Universal, and Tesco. In 2019 the workers demanded their proper pay.  Brahm Press takes up the story. And just a note: Kanlayanee is the name of the factory, and the name of the factory owner as well.  BRAHM:My name's Brahm Press, the Director of MAP Foundation. MAP Foundation started in 1996, and one of the things we do is we have a process of developing peer leaders, and other migrant worker leaders, identify people who are potential leaders, give them training, and eventually even have passed some through paralegal training. So these workers are able to organise other workers, so that they can collectively bargain with employers for improved working conditions.  In 2019, we invited a reporter from Reuters to Mae Sot to look at the issue of underpayment of wages to migrant workers in factories, and found workers from the Kanlayanee factory. Everyone was being underpaid and there were massive labour rights violations going on. And this developed into a story mainly because these factories were producing for American brands.  Soon after that, the factory closed once Starbucks withdrew its order. So out of the 50 workers around half decided they wanted to take their case for redress, they wanted to make claims for unpaid back wages, unpaid overtime including working on days off and holidays. This group as it turns out, had also passed through some paralegal trainings that MAP had provided so they were very active and very aware of their rights.  Kanlayanee wanted to negotiate with the workers, and so she started negotiations at around half a million Baht, and there were a couple of rounds of negotiation but it was unsatisfactory. So that was around the time that we decided that maybe we should look at the brands. MAP, CCC and WRC, Worker Rights Consortium, worked together along with our community partner CBO, known as Arakan Workers Organisation. The factory owner actually put up pictures of all the workers who were part of the claims, and said do not hire these people, basically put out a blacklist and everywhere they went they found that they were not accepted even though they have obviously extensive experience in garment factories. A lot of them stayed together and they were sharing food which included foraging for like bamboo shoots and morning glory and other things that were just available in the jungle or on the roadside and then eat that with the rice. So it was difficult.  So finally in August or September the court ordered Kanlayanee to pay thirty per cent of the total, or around one point one million Baht. She was able to pay that pretty much right there and then, and so from that, we then turned around and asked the brands to simply pay a portion of the remainder divided between the four brands. Reuters was covering the situation and giving updates on who was paying and who was not, so again that media back-strategy was really helpful.  That left Universal as the last company not to pay any compensation. Three companies paid, including Starbucks. In order to pressure Universal, we decided to focus on their character the Minions from the Despicable Me cartoon, which I think was what was being produced there. And so there were videos and photos of workers dressed as Minions doing the same things to survive as the workers. It was rather cute and creative but at the same time very meaningful.  Later in February NBC approached us and Clean Clothes Campaign saying they would pay, kind of out of the blue. The workers are amazing because besides taking care of their debts and remitting back to their families, mostly they've also decided to use funds to help improve the workers' centre by the CBO that I mentioned, Arakan Workers Organisation, and that centre will help receive similar complaints, and they also put together funds to purchase dry foods to assist other workers in the area who are out of work due to COVID. So that's our story. HOST:That was Brahm Press from MAP Foundation.  The situation for migrant workers is often complicated.  It depends on labour law, but also migration laws. The details are different, in different countries.  Mae Sot is just one example. But it shows many common challenges.  Reiko Harima is Regional Coordinator at Mekong Migration Network, based in Japan. Their work includes Mae Sot and Thailand. REIKO:A lot of policies in relation to labour rights and migration have to a certain extent improved, or have been clarified. So for example migrant workers in garment industry are protected for their labour rights, they are entitled to minimum wage protection, they're entitled to overtime arrangement, and they're entitled to social security system enrolment, just as example. But in reality if the migrant workers complain when they're not receiving minimum wage, they would be, they would lose jobs, they would be blacklisted from the industry, they would not be able to find any other job, and so on. So this lack of enforcement of existing legislation, this has not been improved very much for the past decades.  One of the unfortunately common challenge for migrant women garment factory workers, is the lack of maternity protection. Again it's the issue of lack of enforcement of law, because in Thailand even if migrant women get pregnant they're entitled to maternity protection, they shouldn't be losing a job because of they're getting pregnant, they should be entitled to paid maternity leave, but in reality, most of the migrant women we have talked to are even thankful if they could keep jobs unpaid. Why are they not enforcing it, I think that comes from several reasons. One is that there is less pressure, especially in case of migrant women, because as you know in Thailand, migrant workers are not allowed to start the trade union of their own. They're allowed to join but they cannot start their own trade union. In border areas like Mae Sot where all the workers are migrant workers, how do you start the union, how do you join the union because there are no local workers there who can start the union. So without this kind of collective pressure the government, again, or employers, have less pressure to actually implement the law.  Despite the fact that migrant workers are not allowed to form a trade union there have been a number of actually cases where migrant workers in garment factories did come together and use their collective bargaining power or jointly filed a case, launched a complaint, against their employer through the labour office. And there have been actually several landmark victory cases where the court declared that the employers must pay the unpaid wages to these workers. But in reality, employers did not pay. Nothing changed. And all this workers unfortunately lost the jobs and they could not find any other job in the area or in the same industry because of blacklist.  What we probably need to probably strengthen the support, is what happens to workers after they actually win the cases. Because quite often we celebrate the victory but not necessarily being able to follow up thoroughly over the threats and really difficult conditions that these workers face after they win the cases.  HOST:Reiko Harima from Mekong Migration Network. Migrants and refugees work in the garment industry in many parts of the world –  In Turkey their role is enormous.  As well as Syrian refugees, others from Afghanistan, Pakistan, and former Soviet Union states can all be found, in garment factories.  Hussain is a twenty-five year old refugee worker there.  He tells his story here, with interpretation by Mariam Danisjo.  HUSSAIN:[Original in Dari] MARIAM:I just arrived, and I'm starting my work.  That's Hussain. He's lived in Istanbul, Turkey for the past year. I first met Hussain when I was working for a refugee organization here -- He's from Afghanistan, like me. I'm interpreting for him here. My name's Mariam.   HUSSAIN:[Original in Dari] MARIAM:He tells me that he's from the city of Bamyan.  HUSSAIN:[Original in Dari] MARIAM:It's a very peaceful place. I can say it's the safest city in Afghanistan. I spent my whole life in Bamyan. Those are my best memories. Since then, I've faced so many problems.  HUSSAIN:[Original in Dari] MARIAM:My parents passed away. I joined the military. The government sent me to Logar Province. // But visiting my family was dangerous, because the Taliban had informants along the way. Many of my friends were found this way and beheaded by the Taliban. That's why my family asked me to leave the country. It was difficult for me to leave. I was a little bit young. I wasn't ready. But I had to accept.  HUSSAIN:  [Original in Dari] MARIAM:From Kabul, I got a passport with a visa for Iran. From Iran I walked to the border. It took us five or six days. I was scared. If the Iranian police saw, they would shoot. We would run at night. During the day, we would hide in old houses, in the mountains.. I hardly dared to hope we would reach Turkey alive  HUSSAIN[Original in Dari] MARIAM:But when I arrived in Ankara, I lost my hope. I was expecting UNHCR – the United Nations Refugee Agency – to help me get registered as a refugee. Or at least find a good job. But the Turkish government and UNHCR never helped us. The first place where I started working, I wasn't a garment worker. I didn't have any experience sewing clothes. So at first, I worked as a cleaner. But it wasn't enough. I was sending money to my family as well. We had a lunch break between 1 and 2 o'clock. That's when I tried to learn how to use the machines. I'd ask others to teach me. I learned how to work the machine in a month.  HUSSAIN:[Original in Dari] MARIAM:My shift starts at 8:30. Every two or three weeks, the designs are different. Right now we're sewing clothes for five or six year old boys. The clothes are being sent to Germany. I don't know the name of the brand. We work until 7 o'clock in the evening. If I mess up the clothes, my boss shouts at me. I work hard, I'm not paid well. And I still get yelled at. I come home very tired. I'm not working legally, so I don't have sick days.   Hussain tells me how much he makes. He says he is paid 12 Turkish lira an hour -- Which makes 1 euro, 33 cents. In a month he makes 2 thousand, 500 Turkish lira … That's only 277 euros. It is a little bit more than half of minimum wage in Turkey. HUSSAIN:[Original in Dari] MARIAM:I spend a thousand liras a month on rent and groceries. There are five of us in a three room flat. On the weekends, before the coronavirus lockdowns, I used to go outside. Now, on Saturdays and Sundays, I read books. Inspiring books, on how to develop myself. How to have a better life. When I'm older, I'm planning to open my own business. I'm learning how to build websites, so I can help people set up an online business. I want to make my own future.  HOST:That's Hussain. This piece was produced by Durrie Bouscaren.  Around two million people work without legal status in Turkey – mostly refugees or migrants. If you like this podcast – please share it with your colleagues in the Clean Clothes Network! And if you haven't subscribed already – make sure you do! You'll get an email every time we publish a new episode, so you won't miss a thing You don't have to be a migrant or a refugee to face extra exploitation at work.  It can find you right in your own home.  Home-based work has been described as ‘invisible labour'.  But home-based workers across the world have been getting organised. Matthew Abud has this report.  REPORTER:Last February saw the launch of HomeNet International  That's a new global network of home-based worker organisations. Janhavi Dave is its international coordinator, based in Delhi. She's been part of India's home-based worker movement / for several years now.  JANHAVI:You know whenever I meet home-based workers especially in garment sector, I always ask them why do they work as home-based workers. And you know what we've found is generally three key reasons which they provide. One is the unfair burden of care work, and this is quite big. You know they have to take care of their children, families, cooking, cleaning, and many developing countries they spend a lot of time fetching water. So there is no other option for them to do any other form of remunerative work apart from home-based work. The second reason is also lack of mobility. They don't have affordable and safe you know or accessible transportation systems to go for example to factories. Or the other part is also, you know due to the patriarchal system women are not allowed to go to the factories or outside their own homes and work. The third key reason you know why they work from home is that there is no other form of work, so this is the only option that they have.  Home based workers as a category of labour is not recognised. Not recognised by and I feel mostly by the primary employer which are the brands. Once they're not recognised, you know there's this entire space where everybody has the capacity to exploit them. You know if they're recognised at the top, and say they have a policy for home-based workers a lot of exploitation can be reduced.  REPORTER:HomeNet International might be new. But in India – as well as elsewhere – organising home-based workers has a long history. JANHAVI:It started somewhere in the 1970s and it was started by Self-Employed Women's Association, and with the garment workers.. The first time when they went for one of the registrations, with the Labour Department, they asked them what is the category of worker, and because you know they had to come up with something quickly, one of the leaders said home-based workers. From 1970s you know, of course SEWA was organising a lot of women home-based workers in India, they also were closely working with ILO, and they got in touch with other organisations in Europe, and Asia, and realised that they were not the only ones organising home based workers, there were many other organisations across the world.  That is the time when they received support and solidarity from three global unions, as far as I remember. One is IUF, second is FNV, and the third is ITGLWF. Now this comes to the early 90s, and when all of them got together and pushed for ILO Convention 177…  REPORTER:C-177 is the ILO Convention on Home Work JANHAVI:…ILO Convention 177, in 1996 this Convention was adopted. You can imagine, you know, there are these big companies, they don't want a Convention for home workers. The brands also, these big companies went back to their countries and ensured it was never adopted.  REPORTER:Only ten countries have ratified Convention 177 so far, with the last being the Netherlands in 2012.  But organising home-based workers hasn't stopped. The path this follows, is different in each country.  In Pakistan for example, home based work is an enormous part of the labour force – but just how big, nobody knows.  Zehra Khan says the best estimate is that the country has around twelve million home-based workers, with eighty percent women.  She's the General Secretary of the Home Based Women Workers Federation – the first union for these workers.  ZEHRA:So there's no fixed wage for them, working in a very low wage, having health issues, not considered part of the economy. Previously this issue was raised on the basis of gender, and most civil society organisations saw it as an issue of the poor women. But we took home based worker issue purely as a working class issue, not just a gender issue, and we said home based workers was being exploited as both a women and the labour. So home based workers get work in their home and it is thinking in the society that the woman was getting the job by staying at home so she don't have any problem.  REPORTER:Zehra and others started to organise home-based workers over ten years ago – the union was first registered in 2009.  Because workers are in their own homes, this organising perhaps looks a little more like community development, rather than conventional industrial union work.  ZEHRA:We started meeting and study circles with these women workers, and made these women realise that they are working and have some rights. This was a difficult stage.   So we formed union at provincial level and then at federal level, and it was first ever trade union of home based workers in Pakistan and led by all the women from the working class and were themselves engaged with the home-based sector. Majority of these home based workers were not literate one but consciously they were far ahead.  REPORTER:They had a union, but home-based workers were still not recognised in the law – so changing this, became the next objective. The Federation first targeted the government in the province of Sindh. ZEHRA:We have participated in draft of policy and even in act as well. And along with this we were building pressure by rallies and demonstrations, and finally by May 2018, the Act of Home Based Workers was passed in provincial assembly. So after passing this law in 2018, the whole workers in Sindh, the first thing is they become legally recognised as worker in Pakistan. The main thing is that now their wages have been fixed, they will be calculated as the minimum wage or you can say the living wage.  And the more important thing is that any issue with the employer, middle man or their contractor, they can now sue them in the arbitrary committee. Any cases, in terms of wages, in terms of any harassment, in terms of anything from their contractor or from their employer, they can go to sue the employer.  REPORTER:Meantime, in Southeast Asia, Thailand has around three point seven million home based workers. That's out of around twenty million informal workers in total.  The mobilisation and campaigning story there, is a little different.  Poonsap Tulaphan is Director of the Foundation for Labour and Employment Promotion.  POONSAPSince 2000, we try to mobilise and organise home based workers. We need to develop the understanding, because normally the home based worker they not consider themselves as a worker. Most of them are women so they consider themselves as a house wife, not a worker. We have to draw the supply chain, that the finished product will go back to the factories and factory export to other country, and they also support the economic growth of the country. That is how we explain to our members REPORTER:Thailand didn't have a formal organisation for home-based workers until 2013 – that's HomeNet Thailand. This is an NGO rather than a trade union. But even before then, after ten years of organising by Poonsap and many others, the country passed the HomeWorker Protection Act in 2011.  POONSAP:The main message in the bill is that it's like, if the worker produce the same product as the factory, they should get the same income, or the same piece rate the factory pay for them. And at the same time there is no law on occupational health and safety. So under the homeworker protection act it state that the employer shouldn't sub-contract the work that are not safe, and if the sub-contract they should educate or training in terms of occupational health and safety, and they have to provide the PPE, the personal protection equipment.  REPORTER:Poonsap says the HomeWorker Protection Act still hasn't had enough impact on the ground.  It took the government three years to even set up the HomeWorkers Committee, as required by the law – so more work is needed.  But that's not the only legislative advance they achieved.  Thailand's social security scheme was set up in the 1990s, and relies on contributions from workers, employers, and government.  For a long time, home-based workers and other informal workers, were supposed to pay for all three – which was impossible.  POONSAP:Informal worker we also contribute for the economic growth of the country, so the government have to take responsible on this. So we advocate and we success in 2011, that the government will co-pay. But the government co-pay only from their side, only about one part of the contribution fee. So if you pay one hundred baht for the contribution fee, the government will co-pay thirty baht and we have to pay seventy baht.  REPORTER:In South and Southeast Asia, home-based workers have been getting organised.  Regional networks were also established.  Here's Janhavi again. JANHAVI:So in 1998 HomeNet South East Asia was formed, and in 2000 HomeNet South Asia was formed. Over the years these organisations strengthened in numbers, but in the early 2010, there was a need felt to actually go beyond Asia and start organising home based workers. This is when WIEGO came into support…  REPORTER:WIEGO is an NGO – the name stands for Women in Informal Employment, Globalizing and Organizing JANHAVI…WIEGO came into support, they did a lot of mapping work, supported local organisations, and in 2013 we had HomeNet Eastern Europe and Central Asia, and now a lot of organising efforts are happening in Africa and in Latin America.  REPORTER:After many decades of organising, and building regional networks, it was time for a global network – and that's HomeNet International.  JANHAVI:And WIEGO coordinated this effort as a central organisation. And we were hoping to have a first congress, launch congress in the year 2020. We couldn't have it because of the pandemic, but very recently in February we had the launch congress of course virtually, but now there exists a global network of home-based workers.  HomeNet International currently has thirty six affiliates, and collectively we represent over six hundred thousand home-based workers from over eighteen countries. And a first step is actually going to be solidarity building between all our affiliates. While everybody's a home-based worker they're also very different, because you know they work in very different political climates, economic situations, they come from different class, ethnicity, and we have a big, big task of building solidarity between all our affiliates. So that's going to be our first step.  And the third is, which is going to be big for us, is building partnerships with other trade unions, which is ITUCs and SNVs and IUF. And when we say these trade unions, we also want to build partnerships with other organisations which can support the cause of home-based workers, the campaign organisations, Clean Clothes Campaign, Asia Floor Wage Alliance, and ETI. So we're on the lookout what are the other global partnerships that we can build for our network.  HOST:All workers deserve to have their rights defended.  That means greater collaboration, across different worker rights organisations. Marlese von Broembsen, is Law Programme Director at WIEGO – Women in Informal Employment, Globalising and Organising. MARLESE:It's not helpful to from a solidarity perspective and from a political perspective to distinguish between workers inside the factory and workers outside the factory. I mean we know for example from an ILO study done in 2017 that approximately fifty per cent of these factories are taking orders below cost, and so they have to seek mechanisms to download costs and risks onto workers. So typically the workers inside the factory, the pressure on them is unpaid overtime. But the other way of doing that is to outsource further down. They download a range of production costs. So that's the cost of space, it's the cost of electricity, it's the cost of equipment, the sewing machine, the needles. And they can pay them so much less. It's totally unregulated and therefore you know factories can pay nothing. I think it's endemic in the model and unless the procurement terms change it's here to stay.  When we've approached brands, we being WIEGO but also HomeNet Southeast Asia and HomeNet Southasia, when they've approached the brands to say can we track, we know there are home workers in your supply chains, can we trace the supply chain. Sometimes the brands have been quite keen and when we ask them well what would you do, well they'll ban homework then. And I think that's a particular concern for us as we enter this period of the EU mandatory due diligence, because unless we explicitly say it covers the entire chain, and unless we explicitly say all workers should be covered and homeworkers are legitimate workers, the concern for us is that brands will simply say we don't authorise home work. And then it goes further underground and will have further implications for, particularly for wages.  So I think that the point that I'm wanting to make is that you know, do we want to be having first class, second class, third class, some are protected, some are not, some are, only formal ones are protected, and in a sense we really should be transcending the sort of labour law categories of employment and what should be protected and that in fact all workers, whether they're formal or informal, standard, non-standard, should be entitled to labour rights.  HOST:That's Marlese von Broembson, and that's the end of our show.  We have three more shows to go in this series. Like always – we want your feedback! Please email us at podcast@cleanclothes.org. Matthew Abud produced this episode, with Anne Dekker, and the Clean Clothes Podcast team. Liz Parker, Tanne de Goei, and Johnson Chin-Yin Yeung. Sound engineering support is by Steve Adam  I'm Febriana Firdaus.    

Industries around the world including the garment sector have to change if we're going to survive the climate and ecological crisis. How can we make sure that worker and community rights are at the centre of this change? In this episode: Efforts in the Philippines to develop a Just Transition campaign for workers and communities (Rochelle Porras, EILER) What a Just Transition must involve, from a global union perspective (Alison Tate, ITUC) Campaigns to pressure garment manufacturers to stop polluting the environment that also highlight worker rights (Urska Trunk, Changing Markets) How environment movements and worker movements share the same goals in a Just Transition (Karin Nansen, Friends of the Earth) Steps the Clean Clothes Campaign can take to push for a Just Transition for garment workers (Tibbe Smith-Larsen, CCC)  Please tell us what inspired you about this show, and share your feedback, comments and questions, by emailing: podcast@cleanclothes.org  Speakers: Rochelle Porras, EILER, Philippines Alison Tate, ITUC Urska Trunk, Changing Markets Karin Nansen, Friends of the Earth Uruguay & Friends of the Earth International Tibbe Smith-Larsen, Europe Coalition Coordinator Host: Febriana Firdaus (febrianafirdaus.com)Field Reporters: Petra Ivsic and Aca VragolovicSound Engineering Support: Steve Adam (www.spectrosonics.com.au) Producer: Matthew Abud Clean Clothes Podcast Team: Anne Dekker, Johnson Ching-Yin Yeung, Liz Parker, Tanne de Goei Full Transcript HOST:Welcome to the Clean Clothes Podcast.  In today's show we're talking about a Just Transition.  It's a big conversation.  KARIN:We believe that the systemic crisis are interconnected, be it the climate crisis, biodiversity crisis, water crisis, food crisis, and now the pandemic. So if we all want to overcome this crisis, this systemic crisis we face, we really need the people's movements, people's organisations, to come together.  HOST:It's about how we need to build a better world, if we want to survive in the future. And about what that means for the rights of all workers.   URSKA:I mean in general we're talking about one of the most polluting industries on the planet, synonymous with over-consumption, pollution, increasing waste crisis, but also exploitation of workers in the global supply chains HOST:And what the Clean Clothes Campaign Network needs to do.  TIBBE:To have a consciousness about the environmental issues, climate issues, it's still quite a new thing. And I think it really is a challenge for us as a Network now to understand what are these implications for workers, and what are the responses that we propose and what is it that we imagine a Just Transition looks like HOST:You just heard from several of our guests – we'll meet them all again, later in the show.  I'm Febriana Firdaus.  The challenges of climate and ecological crisis are profound. But in many ways, we're still working out what it involves for workers.  How do we transition from the current business model to one that is good for workers and the environment?  In mainstream debates a lot of the talk is about a just transition in the energy sector.  Often Just transition is seen as something for the energy sector to carry out.  We need to change the energy sector – but we also need much more than that This episode is about starting some of that discussion.  With people in the Clean Clothes Network, and with others outside it.  Right now, a Just Transition can have different meanings for different movements.  But the campaigns will be stronger, if these meanings are connected. If the understanding is shared.  How do we make that happen in our own countries, and our own places of work? Rochelle Porras is Executive Director of EILER, Ecumenical Institute For Labor Education and Research in the Philippines. ROCHELLEIt's true, we have to really transition into a low-carbon economy otherwise we won't have a planet to live in, the production system is absolutely not sustainable as of the moment. But I guess the problem lies in the implementation of the programs that the country-level policies when we talk about Just Transition. First and foremost Just Transition in developing countries like the Philippines receive less attention because the energy industry is still is facing the very basic of problems such as you know, many of our areas still don't have electricity. So it's mind-blowing for us to talk about these technological advancement when the very basic, you know we need electricity to run things, something as basic as that, we don't have it yet. Likewise the Philippine energy industry's also guided by privatisation, liberalisation, and so no public ownership. And renewable energy industries are primarily being provided and enjoyed by the biggest industry players as well.  As a third-world country it's a lot different. So a lot of production are happening in South East Asian countries including the Philippines. But a lot of the design, the research, the planning, these are happening in the countries where multinational corporations are hosted or based. So what we get here in producing countries are the model of production that these multi-national corporations want us to take on in order to produce the products that they needed. So essentially there is no technological transfer and once a new technology is introduced in a setup of a neo-colonial country and with the rise of neo-liberalisation as well, most of the workers experience displacement.  Decent work will not exist if workers' rights and welfare are not protected, and if the current economic systems that you know, we have in this present COVID-19 pandemic is promoting neo-liberal policies and extreme attacks on workers' wages, labour standards and welfare, if this persists you know, green jobs will not really mean decent work or decent job quality for all. We felt like it is high time to start a worker-led Just Transition, hence we started a round table discussion in 2018 and from there we gathered more facts and then brought it out and presented it to NGOs, CSOs that we work with, such as environmental groups that are working on transition to renewable energy and so on. By 2019 we have pledges from unions in the service sector, in the manufacturing sector, and likewise included are the agricultural workers. We have all agreed and pledged that this will be a campaign platform and a research platform to conduct more evidence-based research on the possibility and understanding the impact of implementing just transition in the particular industries.  You know the organised forces of labour and along with the environmental groups and the youth are all involved in understanding that without a collective voice and collective action, we will not arrive at a common goal of what we want to be the model of Just Transition that works in the Philippines.  What makes it very difficult to do so is the repressive situation that we have in the Philippines. It's sad to say but the Philippines is the number one country in terms of the killings of environmental and land rights defenders. We're also included in the top ten lists of the worst countries for workers, because of extreme violation of trade union rights, and to date there are fifty one trade unionists that have been victims of extra-judicial killings in the Philippines. And there's also the war on drugs that targeted the poor. I invite also you and the listeners to take a look, take a closer look at the Philippines situation and express your solidarity, echo the call for justice especially the land rights defenders.  HOST:That's Rochelle Porras from EILER.  The Round Tables are a starting-point for a social dialogue – which brings together different communities and sectors in society.  In The Philippines, these didn't only talk about changes in the energy sector.  They also highlighted growing automation at work, as a major transition that workers face.  The challenges are global, and workers in all sectors must respond globally.  Alison Tate is Director of Social and Economic Policy at the International Trade Union Confederation, ITUC.  That work includes the ITUC's Just Transition Centre.  The Centre was set up after the 2015 Paris Agreement on Climate Change That was the first time governments promised to commit to a Just Transition, in an international agreement.  ALISON:So we set up the Just Transition Centre as a way to support the capacity and the engagement of trade unions around those challenges, and to really develop the relationships with business and government at local level, that means municipal level, at state level, at a national level and indeed above that, across countries, to really shift what's possible in terms of ensuring a Just Transition.  So we have to acknowledge at a societal level we all need to make changes and transition. But transitions in the past haven't gone so well where they haven't been planned. So you know we can see examples where people, local economies have been devastated. We've been left with inter-generational unemployment because there hasn't been the forward thinking about what's needed in those communities.  So what should be involved is workers, and in their workplaces, being able to really engage with their management as to what steps the companies are taking to reduce carbon emissions. Whether that's workers on a production line or in a manufacturing process, or in an agricultural process, they are the people who really know the local conditions best. And when that knowledge is really taken into the process to think more creatively about what we need, then we can see that a genuinely economic and social, as well as environmental sustainability plan can be put in place.  What we would see as a good Just Transition plan is that governments, employers, unions and community are all involved in anticipating the changes and responding to that in a way that you know, the United Nations has this language in the Sustainable Development Goals of not leaving anyone behind. That's what' it's all about, it's having an employment plan, a skills training plan, what are the investments needed for that local economy to thrive, what are the jobs that are going to be needed in that local economy, and how are those workers who are currently part of that community, with the skills level that they currently have, what's going to be needed to transition, to actually re-deploy workers where workers are going to be phased out of that work because the industry's going to be phased out or that type of production's going to be phased out, and that's really different in different countries, in different societies, in different cultures, and in different local economies.  I would give one of the really great examples of being the coal phase-out plans in Spain. You know Spain's one of the few countries that's taken on actually having a Just Transition plan at the national level. They set up a whole process that engaged trade unions in the companies and the regions that are most impacted. They have a plan around what kind of investment is needed, what kind of hours of work is needed as a transition. There's a plan for the future, rather than just you know crossing fingers and hoping it will all work out, they've actually pulled together the real stakeholders in these processes. And it hasn't been an easy process, it's taken time, but there's a real engagement around understanding that it's not only about what that particular industry delivers to the economy, but how that fits within the bigger picture of the economic future of the country, and the economic plans for social policy, you know what it means in terms of pension ages, what it means in terms of younger workers having access to apprenticeships and training, and really having a forward-looking view.  I would say that in some cases, because of the way we organise society you know there are different movements. There's the labour movement, the environment movement, there are others who see their identity around working for ensuring human rights are respected. And somehow we've got those separated, like siloed in some way. But I would say that the importance of dealing with climate change, and addressing it from the perspective of both equality and ensuring transition is a process that engages the stakeholders, then that is about alliance-building. And sometimes people see themselves on different sides of the fence. But actually a Just Transition process can really bring together in a really profound way those different actors into an understanding that we're not actually going to achieve it if we don't all work on the same side of the fence.   HOST:That's Alison Tate, from the ITUC.  The clearest examples of Just Transition initiatives in action, are mostly in the energy sector.  That's how the Paris Agreement talks about Just Transition as well.  But the challenge is much bigger than even that. In 2015, ILO published its Just Transition guidelines. That talks about sustainable development across all sectors.  It needs social dialogue, social protection, rights at work, and jobs.  Across the garment industry, it's hard to find serious plans for any of this.  Consultancies and industry produce reports on the environment and fashion, but they never talk about workers. URSKAWe're talking about one of the most polluting industries on the planet become synonymous with over-consumption, pollution,  HOST:That's Urska Trunk, Campaign Manager from Changing Markets.  URSKA:Our mission is to expose irresponsible corporate practices and drive change towards a more sustainable economy.  HOST:This involves changing the way products are manufactured, how they're used – and what happens after that.  It's about making manufacturing more sustainable for the environment. That's just one small part of what a Just Transition needs. URSKA:And we are actually running two campaigns currently in the fashion industry, for example our recent campaign, called Fossil Fashion exposes that today's fast fashion model is enabled by cheap synthetic fibres. Already more than half of all the textiles we use today is made from polyester and if the industry continues down this road in ten years almost three quarters of our textiles will be made from plastic-based fibres. Another one of our campaigns called Dirty Fashion that we have been running for four years now, looks at viscose and this is increasingly popular with the fashion brands. The campaign highlights that viscose is today largely manufactured through a dirty process that has a devastating impact on people and environment around the production sites, namely in Asia in countries such as India, China and Indonesia. And we want to hold corporations into account and push them to actually adopt more sustainable models of manufacturing.  Actually it might come as a surprise to many that less than one per cent of all clothes are recycled back to clothes, and this is what is currently needed, we need some sort of eco-design measures to make sure that the clothes that come to our market are not only produced in a responsible way, meaning that they limit the input of harmful chemicals but are also produced in a way that can be re-used and recycled at the end of life, and this is what we talk about, about circular economy. We still have a long way to go to actually achieve that.  The corporations themselves have you know, failed to change their dirty ways, and where we see the solution is in legislation, it's time for policy-makers to step up and regulate the sector, and actually there's a really great opportunity coming up. The European Commission is currently preparing an EU Textile Strategy which could really be a game-changer for a circular economy. And exactly what they're discussing is eco-design measures to have criteria for what kind of materials come to the market, whether they have the potential to be re-used and recycled at the end of life. And what will also be discussed is to make sure that companies are responsible for the over-production they create and for the items they put out on the market.  While our own expertise lies in environmental protection and supply chain investigation, we understand that environmental and social issues are kind of two sides of the same coin and are intrinsically linked. So this is why we have a long-standing partnership with the Clean Clothes Campaign. This partnership allowed us to have a holistic approach and take into account not only social justice but also environmental justice HOST:Everyone in this episode talked about the need to build alliances between worker rights and other movements – you heard Alison and Rochelle say this earlier.  Karin Nansen is with Friends of the Earth in Uruguay, and is the chair for Friends of the Earth International.  For her, this alliance building is critical for a Just Transition.  KARINFor us in Friends of the Earth, justice is at the core of everything we do. We believe that the systemic crisis are interconnected, be it the climate crisis, biodiversity crisis, water crisis, food crisis, and now the pandemic. They have common roots, with a system that puts priority on profit, puts priority on capital accumulation, instead of taking care of the planet and taking care of people's rights and people's needs. So if we all want to overcome this crisis, this systemic crisis we face, we really need the people's movements, people's organisations, to come together. So our struggles go hand in hand with the struggles of the working class, of the trade unions. The first thing for us is to really have a common analysis which might have different perspectives, or there may be issues which we don't have a common ground or we don't have an agreement, but it is important to be aware of those common agreements, and where there are disagreements as well.  Then we think that it's very important to recognise the struggles of the different movements and the different dimensions of justice. And when we identify whether we have this shared vision of justice at the core of everything we do, then we can understand better what it means environmental justice, what it means social justice, what gender justice means.  So what we say is that the Just Transition cannot be paid by the workers, cannot be that those who didn't generate the problem, are the ones who are going to pay this transition.  We have quite common history with trade unions, I'm talking for example about the history of campaigning against energy privatisation and commodification in the nineties for example, or our joint campaigning with unions against water privatisation which was a very strong campaign in my country for example, in which we came together with the trade unions to fight against the privatisation of water.  So there is a real commitment, strong commitment to build alliances with trade unions. If around specific projects we might have differences from time to time, but I think it's also a matter of how much interaction we have and we cultivate. We have you know seen how the unions, the workers' movement, is really also committed to the same kind of principles we are committed to.  Currently our work is mainly about Just Transition in terms of climate justice and energy. And this is going to allow us not just to think about technology. Technologies are very important because we need to really you know leave behind an energy system that is totally dependent on fossil fuels, we need to leave behind that system. But it is also about who controls it, who has the power to decide, how decision-making is taken. Because that's a risk, we might win the battle around renewable energy, but we could have a future in which transnational corporations are controlling the energy system in a way that doesn't allow the democratisation of energy, doesn't allow for the right to energy.  So we do agree that the transformation needed goes well beyond the energy sector, and that applies also to the food system, applies to the way we manage biodiversity, the forests and so on. But maybe we are not yet calling that Just Transition. It's framed in a different way. And I think it's a lot of how the movements want to frame the proposals for transformation of society. How broad we want the concept or the principle of Just Transition It's something we need reclaim as movements, that we need to make sure that we are the ones setting the framework and setting the principles and really you know also having a control in terms of how the transition is taking place.  HOST:So what's needed for a Just Transition in the garment sector?  And what does this mean for the Clean Clothes Campaign?  Tibbe Smith Larsen is the Network's European Coordinator. TIBBEClean Clothes has a fairly long history with working with workers' rights specifically in the garment sector, and I think that to have a consciousness about the environmental issues, climate issues, and how it actually links to garment workers, it's still quite a new thing for the consciousness of the Network. And it's only now being also written into the Global Strategic Framework, our strategy for the next five years, under the headline ‘A Just Transition to a New Business Model'. So understanding the broad inter-linkages, we don't have the analysis behind us in our history of work, to really provide us with a coherent understanding of it.  It's both taking into consideration at the core unsustainability of the business model, which is based on exploitation of both workers and resources, environment.  And also taking into consideration the move to new types of businesses, e-retailers, direct sales, etcetera. So there are some changes in the market, it's not just the big brands and fast fashion retailers any more, there are multiple players that are using slightly different business models. And all of these things together with a general increased focus on environmental issues linked to the garment sector, it does have an impact on workers.  Any transition shouldn't come at the expense of workers, it needs to include workers, it needs to have worker rights and human rights at the core of it. We also know that the ways of production ,where it hurts climate it hurts the environment, it also hurts workers in various ways. So it's really about not separating the two.  There are different imperatives from the fashion industry for these changing business models. At the core of it it's still about being able to earn as much money as possible, and then managing or overcoming whatever risks there may be, for instance in terms of climate crisis, changing consumer behaviour in consumer markets. And I think it really is a challenge for us as a Network now to understand what are these implications for workers, and what are the responses that we propose and what is it that we imagine a Just Transition looks like, and it involves understanding very well the impacts of different changes, the different implications that these changing business models have on workers.  I think this is also about the bottom-up approach in the Network, it's also at the core of what we want, the social dialogue and the inclusiveness of the workers who are directly impacted. It's urgent but I think that this is really the first step and I hope that within the next coming years we have a more broader involvement and engagement and a strong conversation within the Network about this so that it's not just coming from a few entities, but it's really, it's greatly mobilising the Network behind what this means. And because of this strong internal focus on it, being able to make the strong links with alliances as well because we have the core contribution from our side as well about what it means.  So this is my hope for the coming years.  HOST:That's Tibbe Smith Larsen, ending our show.  Like always – please send us your feedback! You can find us at podcast@cleanclothes.org. Matthew Abud produced this episode, with Anne Dekker, and the Clean Clothes Podcast team. Liz Parker, Tanne de Goei, and Johnson Chin-Yin Yeung. Sound engineering support is by Steve Adam  I'm Febriana Firdaus.