Job code may erase sweatshops

Thursday, April 17, 1997 | 11:59 a.m.

THE voluntary apparel industry code of conduct announced this week by President Clinton certainly won't solve all the abuses of overseas workers.

But it's a start.

The code applies to garment manufacturers who use, and abuse, the cheap and sometimes desperate labor force in developing countries. Worker abuses are common in Central America and in Asia, and many of the disgusting stories have turned off consumers. Nike has come under particular criticism for paying less than subsistence wages, not permitting days off and winking at physical abuses in the workplace.

One recent incident in Vietnam drew world attention. Women workers in a Nike plant were forced to run around the outside of their factory until they fell exhausted. Their offense was wearing the wrong clothes. Ironically, the incident occurred on a national day to honor women.

In the United States, reports of such abuses have spurred outrage and have threatened sales. Clearly it is time for reform. The question remains whether the code of conduct goes far enough.

It sets a minimum wage, geared to the individual country's standard of living, requires one day off a week and limits work weeks to 60 hours. Those under the age of 14 are banned from the plants. The agreement calls for an end to child labor -- something the United States banned nearly a century ago -- and physical abuse.

There are no penalties, and companies doing business overseas are encouraged to sign the agreement. If they comply, their products can carry a "no sweatshops" label.

The strength of this code lies in the court of public opinion and its effect on the marketplace. Companies may find a "no sweatshops" label may become critical to survival. If alert consumers vote with their pocketbooks, corporations that shun the code may suffer.

Critics should understand that stronger measures could backfire. Economic sanctions would unhinge the delicate, interdependent world economy, deny consumers affordable goods and leave workers overseas without jobs of any kind.

The code sounds like the better option as long as companies adhere to it. Developing countries need a nudge to care for their citizens and using corporate leverage to achieve that may be the best answer.