No-Sweat Update (GAP/Saipan lawsuit)
Global Exchange
April 2, 2002
By Leila Salazar
In this update you will find:
Thank you for your continued support!
In peace and solidarity,
Leila Soraya Salazar
415.255.7296 ext.355
Corporate Accountability Campaign
GAP/Saipan update, including report on National Day of Action on March 19th
On March 19th, as our lawyers litigated in court in Saipan, Global Exchange, Sweatshop Watch, UNITE and Behind the Label called for a National Day of Action/Call-in Day to put pressure on GAP to settle the Saipan Lawsuit.
We would like to thank the activists who came together to protest and leaflet the GAP in:
Wilson, Connecticuit
Sharon, Massachussetts
San Luis Obpispo, California
San Francisco, California (at the new GAP headquarters)
We would also like to thank all of you who called the GAP legal department on March 19th.
Please continue to:
- Organize protests and leafletting events in front of GAP Inc stores. Remember, GAP Inc. includes GAP, Baby Gap, Old Navy and Banana Republic. Please call to register you action at 415-558-9486 ext 355.
- Call GAP's Legal Department at 1-800-333-7899 ext. 77694 Ask them why GAP has not stepped forward and settled the lawsuit as 19 other companies have. Also ask them why they keep resisting the settlement. Tell them to settle the lawsuit and pay their workers a living wage!
-FAX the GAP
You can send a Fax to Donald Fisher, chairman and co-founder of GAP Inc.
Here is a summarized update on the Saipan lawsuits.
As you know, on January 13-14, 1999, three separate lawsuits were filed challenging the unlawful sweatshop conditions in the Saipan, CNMI garment industry.
The first case, filed in San Francisco state court, was brought by Global Exchange, UNITE, Sweatshop Watch, and the Asian Law Caucus against 18 U.S. garment retailers -- including such companies as The Gap, Inc., Target Corp., J.C. Penney, Lane Bryant, and The Limited. Plaintiffs charged that all of the defendant companies engaged in unfair business practices (a violation of California Business and Professions Code ¤17200) by falsely advertising their garments as being sweatshop-free, by violating the federal law prohibiting the shipment of "hot goods" in interstate commerce, by aiding and abetting their Saipan garment factories' violations of the laws against involuntary servitude, and by other misleading labeling and advertising practices.
In early 2002, several of the retailer defendants filed motions for summary adjudication, contending among other things that there is no proof that anyone has been harmed by the retailers' alleged misrepresentations about working conditions in the Saipan factories and that the First Amendment protects those allegedly misleading statements about working conditions. Plaintiffs filed extensive briefs opposing those motions. The parties' arguments will be heard later in 2002. No trial date for the San Francisco action has yet been set.
The second case, filed on behalf of a class of approximately 30,000 foreign garment workers who currently or formerly worked in Saipan, was originally brought in federal court against 18 retailers and 11 Saipan-based garment contractors -- the factories that manufacture the retailers' garments. Plaintiffs alleged that the retailers and their Saipan-based contractors engaged in a series of unlawful conspiracies in violation of RICO (the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act). Plaintiffs also charged that the system of garment production on Saipan violates the Anti-Peonage Act -- which prohibits the use of forced labor, among other things -- and the Alien Tort Claims Act -- which permits foreign nationals to sue in America for violations of generally-accepted human rights.
In February 2002, plaintiffs argued their motion for class certification in the Saipan case. By that motion, the workers are urging that the Saipan case be allowed to proceed as a single action on behalf of the entire class of foreign garment workers who toiled in the Saipan garment factories at any time from January 1989 to the present. Plaintiffs contend that all of the harms suffered by the workers are the result of a large, overarching conspiracy by the retailer and factory defendants, and that trying the case on a collective basis, rather than in a series of individual actions, makes practical and legal sense. A decision is expected on that class certification motion shortly.
The third case, filed by a smaller group of Saipan garment workers, was brought in federal court in Saipan against 22 Saipan-based garment contractors, charging violations of federal overtime law (the Fair Labor Standards Act, or "FLSA"). Although the factories opposed the sending of any notice to their workers to inform them of their rights under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the CNMI judge recently authorized the distribution and publication of notice to approximately 15,000 similarly-situated current and former garment workers, and gave them several months in which to respond. Those notices will be distributed in early April 2002.
Status of Settlement Talks
Beginning in the late Spring of 1999, plaintiffs' counsel started having extensive settlement talks with a broad range of defendants. The plaintiffs have now reached settlements totaling approximately $8.75 million with 19 U.S. mainland retailers: Brooks Brothers, Inc., Brylane, L.P., Calvin Klein, Inc. Cutter & Buck, Inc., Donna Karan International Inc., The Dress Barn, Inc., The Gymboree Corp., J. Crew Group Inc., Jones Apparel Group, Inc., Liz Claiborne, Inc., The May Department Stores Company, Nordstrom Inc., Oshkosh B'Gosh, Inc., Phillips-Van Heusen Corp., Polo Ralph Lauren Corp., Sears Roebuck and Company, Tommy Hilfiger U.S.A., Inc., Warnaco Group, Inc., and Woolrich, Inc. None of these settlements can take effect until after they receive court approval. However, plaintiffs' counsel are hopeful that the settlements will be approved, and that even more defendants -- contractors as well as retailers -- will join in those settlements. The CNMI judge is expected to decide shortly whether to preliminarily approve those settlements and to send notice to all 30,000 potential plaintiffs, advising them of the settlement terms and conditions. A final settlement Fairness Hearing would be scheduled after the sending of notice, if the settlement is preliminarily approved.
Carmencita Chie Abad Speaking Events
Chie Abad will be beginning a speaking tour of the midwest and east coast this Thursday in Illinois. Please spread the word. If you are interested in hosting Chie at your school or in your community, please contact June Brashares at Leila
You will find Chie's upcoming speaking events here.
Looking
"Behind the Labels: Garment Workers in US Saipan", is a new film by WITNESS and Director/Producer Tia Lessin. It exposes how thousands of Chinese and Filipina women pay huge fees to work in the garment factories on the Pacific island of Saipan -- the only U.S. territory exempt from U.S. federal minimum wage and immigration laws. The clothing they sew, bearing the 'Made in the USA' label, is shipped duty and quota free to the U.S. for sale by the GAP, J. Crew, Polo, and other retailers. Hidden camera footage and garment worker's personal stories, reveal a world of indentured labor on the US territory of Saipan, where 14 hour shifts, payless pay days and lockdowns are routine. "Behind the Labels" takes the story from the sweatshop floor to the streets, where protesters across the US and throughout the U.S. and throughout the world, wage an ongoing battle against irresponsible globalization.
Among the themes touched on in the video:
- GAP contracts with garment factories in Saipan and in the Global South.
- The complex, international apparel industry.
- Women in the Global Economy.
- Human Trafficking.
- Labor and Human Rights and Multinational Corporations.
Global Exchange -- along with WITNESS, United Students Against Sweatshops, Mediarights.org, UNITE!, Behindthelabel.org, and Campaign for Labor Rights -- is organizing a coordinated week of screenings of this important new film. The week of actions is called, "Looking Behind the Labels Week." During the week of April 25 -- May 1 there will be over 50 screenings across the country on campuses and in communities, as well as a national media outreach campaign. Members of Congress on Capitol Hill may also screen the film.
Groups participating in Looking Behind the Labels Week will be sent screening guides, action materials, and sample press materials to use in their local communities.
Use this film as an organizing tool!
- To launch a discussion and build awareness around sweatshop issues in your local community or on campus.
- To deepen and grow the group of people in your area working on these issues.
- To build coalitions with between groups in your community.
- To mobilize and organize around a specific campaign or action.
Please let us know as soon as possible if you would like to organize a screening in your community. TAPES COST $50. Send an email (with "BEHIND THE LABEL" in the subject) with your contact information and address to Leila
Please also outline details of your proposed screening including venue, date, expected attendance, interest in linking with other groups in area, and action plans
To receive a tape, send a check for $50 Global Exchange, and mail it to:
Global Exchange
attn: David Hanks
2017 Mission St, suite 303
San Francisco, CA 94110
For more information on WITNESS and to view an excerpted version of 'Behind the Labels' online go to www.witness.org.
In couple of weeks, we will send you another e-mail including a schedule of screenings across the country.
New source for sweatshop alternatives
Dear friends:
Getting serious about fighting sweatshops must include OFFERING ALTERNATIVES. To date, "responsible shopping" lists have offered pretty poor choices, to say the least. Please take a few seconds to look at our new effort.
We're trying to gauge the level of support we can expect from the progressive community for our anti-sweatshop initiative before we begin production. What we're doing is pretty simple -- providing a living wage to union producers here and in the developing world, a competitive product for consumers and a reasonable return for investors. We can do all that if we don't have to advertise. That's the big if. Will the community spread the word about a for-profit venture? On the plus side, we don't compete with the existing non-profits for scarce resources and attention!
