Sweat debate still heated

Osgood releases second draft of possible code; student group labels it overly general

by Kennedy Leavens

Staff Writer

Last week, President Russell Osgood issued his second draft of a possible college apparel purchasing code.

This move is the latest in a two-year-old campaign, initiated and driven by Students Against Sweatshops (SAS), towards Grinnell’s adoption of a policy that would set rigorous labor standards for manufacturers of college apparel and establish a student-faculty committee that would use the code to evaluate the behavior of apparel providers, and, if necessary, to select new providers.

Osgood’s most recent draft failed to satisfy SAS, which called the draft “a step backwards, not forwards.” The principal conflict between Osgood and the student group involves the level of specificity in the code; Osgood feels that a “general” statement would have as strong an impact and prove more feasible, but SAS would like to see a policy with strong language about specific issues. Osgood, however, explained that he felt that both his and SAS’s concerns “boiled down to a pretty general standard,” and that “in the end, we don’t want a laundry list of little things” with which the apparel companies must comply; Osgood’s current draft indeed attests to his interest in providing a “general determination” that any company producing college apparel must “treat their employees decently.”

He recommended that, using the policy as a general guideline, the new committee draw from a variety of sources to determine specific standards to apply. These sources include “watchdog” organizations, like the Fair Labor Association and the Worker’s Rights Consortium, which tend to have standards that vary considerably from group to group. Leaving detail to the committee makes the policy more flexible—according to Osgood, an important consideration because of the way labor standards evolve and change over time.

SAS is unhappy about the content, or lack thereof, as they see it, in the President’s new code.

“Osgood has incorporated our ideas in name and not in substance,” said SAS member Elisa McCool ’06.

The group worries primarily that the draft generalizes broadly about crucial issues; without specificity, they argue, the code will have little impact. The group expressed fears that such “broad construction” of the code gives the committee too much power in determining what standards to hold companies to and allows the committee to overlook infractions.

The stronger the stance the college takes, SAS feels, the stronger the message will be to companies about the importance to consumers of fair labor standards. Osgood and SAS plan to meet soon to discuss the code. After that, said Osgood, he will think about the issue some more, but he hopes to have the policy ready by the first of the year.

SAS is not sure whether their concerns will ever be addressed. “We’ll see how receptive he is next week,” said McCool.