FLA Colludes with Nike to Spread Misinformation about BJ&B

"I want to say to the brands like Nike that they should do everything that they can to keep this factory open. In this moment, we the people of this community, we need this factory here. We should not be blamed, and we should not be punished with the loss of our jobs just because we tried to organize a union to protect ourselves."
-Sebastian Garcia, former employee of BJ&B

On February 22, 2007, the BJ&B factory in the Dominican Republic closed, laying off virtually the entire workforce with no warning. BJ&B, which has made university baseball caps for Nike and Adidas/Reebok, was widely recognized as one of the few factories in the global garment industry that was not a sweatshop.

The factory's closure prompted outrage on the part of workers and students. Adding insult to injury, BJ&B has committed numerous workers' rights violations during the closure process including forcing workers to sign illegal severance agreements and refusing to engage in severance negotiations with the workers' union. Workers and the union have issued numerous statements to Nike and the factory, decrying coercion and bad faith by BJ&B and demanding that the factory remain open.

In the midst of this growing crisis, Nike and the FLA have engaged in a concerted effort to conceal the truth of illegal and unethical behavior on the part of the factory. At first, Nike was on its own, issuing repeated statements to the public to the effect that BJ&B's closure was an amicable process characterized by good faith negotiations and satisfaction on the part of the workers. But Nike's claims were quickly discredited, forcing Nike to admit that it had issued ÒconfusingÓ statements and that it was unable to verify the facts surrounding BJ&B's payment of severance.

Fortunately for the floundering Nike, the FLA stepped in and took over where Nike left off, publishing a report on April 2 concluding that BJ&B had fulfilled all of its legal obligations and that workers' rights had been respected throughout the process. The report does not even attempt to address the numerous worker complaints of bad faith and coercion by the factory. And it claims that workers' rights were respected despite the fact that the factory refused to engage in severance negotiations with the workers' union, instead forcing workers to sign away their right to negotiate as a condition for receiving the payments they were legally due.

Of course it is not surprising that the FLA's report ignores the facts and paints a rosy picture of the factory's behavior given that the FLA's study was conducted not by an objective labor rights monitor but by a lawyer that represents apparel factories in the Dominican Republic. The lawyer, Milton Ray Guevara, has worked for the country's biggest and notoriously anti-union apparel company, Grupo M.

The FLA report, which has since been circulated to universities by Nike, is not the work of an independent labor monitoring organization. Although the FLA describes the purpose of its report as Òexamining the factsÓ and states that it Òmakes no judgments nor reaches any conclusions about the situationÓ and is Òintended only to clarify the terms and conditions of the closure so that the situation can be addressed by concerned parties in a more informed mannerÓ it fulfills none of these objectives. Instead, the FLA ignores the facts, draws sweeping, unsubstantiated conclusions, and in doing so, only serves to further confuse the public as to the reality of the situation.

Universities affiliated with the FLA should be very concerned that this ÒindependentÓ monitoring organization has produced a report that so clearly ignores available evidence and draws sweeping conclusions in the midst of a heated labor rights dispute. Since the day of the closure, BJ&B workers have been alleging very serious violations of both university codes of conduct and local law on the part of Nike and the factory. Yet, instead of investigating these complaints and making an effort to defend the rights of the fired workers, the FLA has chosen to produce a report for Nike (the report was circulated by Nike before it was shared with universities by the FLA itself) that obscures the facts in order to justify the company's behavior.

A history of neglect: the FLA and the demise of BJ&B

Even before the FLA published this misleading report, the organization had utterly failed to support this factory and the gains that had been made there. In 2003, BJ&B underwent a tremendous transformation from a factory where labor rights violations were rampant to a workplace in which workers and their rights to unionization were respected. When these improvements were made, the FLA was there, eager to take credit for the gains won through the efforts of students and workers. But the FLA's supposed commitment to BJ&B was short-lived. As it became clear that the brands were unwilling to support the breakthroughs made at BJ&B, the FLA remained silent as their member companies cut and run from this historic factory. The FLA knew that BJ&B was in trouble due to a lack of orders, yet they did nothing. The FLA's recent report is just icing on the cake of FLA complicity in the destruction of this factory.

Background on BJ&B: Complying with labor standards is risky business for a Nike factory

In late 2001, serious violations of university codes of conduct were uncovered at the BJ&B factory, including regular forced overtime, degrading verbal abuse, forced pregnancy testing, firing of worker leaders and threats of physical violence in response to workers' attempts to unionize. In 2003, with strong support from USAS and other solidarity activists, workers won their hard-fought struggle for union recognition, successfully negotiating a contract that included an unprecedented wage increase and putting an end to the long history of abuse at the factory.

The FLA was actually involved in this initial effort to improve conditions at BJ&B. Because the case involved a high profile international campaign against two of its largest member companies, the FLA was there on the ground. Faced with the well-publicized reality that BJ&B had been abusing workers' rights for years, the FLA joined the WRC and USAS in pushing the factory to do the right thing and respect the workers' union. When BJ&B became widely recognized as a labor rights breakthrough in the global garment industry and a victory for university codes of conduct, the FLA was eager to take credit, touting its involvement at BJ&B as an example of the organization's effectiveness in eliminating workers' rights abuses.

But the FLA's support quickly faded as Nike and Reebok showed they were bent on undermining the gains made at BJ&B. Precisely because of the improvements in labor standards that were made at this factory, the brands that were producing there began to cut and run, moving production to lower-cost, non-union sweatshops. Between 2003 and 2006, the original workforce of 2,000 was reduced to a few hundred as Nike and Adidas/Reebok deliberately reduced their business at the factory. And despite public concern voiced by workers, USAS, and the WRC, the FLA was silent as its member companies began moving their orders to factories where workers' rights were not respected and the organization refused to participate in efforts to keep the factory in business.

BJ&B Today: FLA fails workers again

The FLA has done nothing as two of its member companies, Nike and Adidas/Reebok, facilitated the closure of BJ&B. As noted above, when historic victories were won at BJ&B in 2003, the FLA was eager and willing to take the credit for the improvements that were made at the factory. But now, as the brands move their orders to other sweatshops, the FLA and its supposed commitment to workers' rights is nowhere to be found. Instead, the FLA is defending the destructive actions of its member corporations, claiming that BJ&B closed because it was no longer an efficient producer and was unable to remain competitive, despite the lack of any evidence to support either of these claims (universities have been asking Nike for months to produce such evidence, to no avail). The FLA has made no effort to keep the factory open, has ignored requests for its participation in multi-stakeholder discussions to address the closure, and rather than questioning the brands' decision to facilitate the demise of this factory, has actually praised Nike and adidas/Reebok for their now-defunct past commitments to BJ&B.

Now the FLA has made clear that it is taking its directives on this controversial case directly from its member companies. The FLA's April 2 report serves no conceivable function other than to rubber-stamp the actions of Nike and the factory during the closure process. The report does this by ignoring available evidence and complaints from workers in order to draw the exact conclusion Nike has been promoting from the beginning: that there is no controversy surrounding the closure of BJ&B. The FLA knows full well that this is false because the conclusion stands in direct contradiction to the available evidence presented by workers and other monitors. It is deplorable that universities' ÒindependentÓ monitoring organization appears so firmly committed to this anti-worker, pro-company position.

The FLA's response to this latest sweatshop crisis showcases the organization's real priorities: when BJ&B represented an easy public relations boost, the FLA wanted to be the workers' biggest supporter; but now that it has become a conflict between workers' well-being and corporate profits, the FLA's true allegiances are clear.