The DSP apparel debate: Part 1 of 2

MOLF.

I'm talking about the Moeser's Office Liberation Front"" one of the more colorful Facebook groups to pop up last semester. Its sole purpose was to end the ""illegal occupation"" of the chancellor's office by protestors.

It never had time to plot a resistance movement. The police arrested the occupiers.

Earlier this spring" Student Action with Workers and other allied groups decided to camp out in South Building. They had reached an impasse and wanted the University to adopt the Designated Suppliers Program.

The basic gist is that such a program would require colleges to source a percentage of their apparel from approved factories.

In order to make the cut employers would have to pay a living wage and respect collective bargaining rights.

Sounds like a good plan except that James Moeser said niet.

Up until then the campuswide debate over the DSP was heated. The issue became personal — and rightfully so. Both sides however made a series of fact-less claims.

SAW claims that the current licensing codes of conduct are union busting.

UNC however is a member of two organizations the Fair Labor Association and the Workers Rights Consortium" that monitor  factories for compliance on workplace standards. Both groups clearly state that employers ""shall recognize and respect"" the right to freedom of association and collective bargaining.

Even more ironic is the fact that foreign factory workers have a right to unionize" whereas N.C. state employees under General Statute 95-98 have no such option. 

SAW also claims that the University is supporting sweatshop labor. But they fail to provide any evidence that shows how the UNC labor licensing committee failed to follow up on any potential violations. They merely cite one case study about globalization and the race to the bottom.

The reality is that UNC Student Stores does source from suppliers that focus on the triple bottom line.

SAW isn't the only guilty party here. Some of Chancellor Moeser's statements don't make any sense either.

Moeser claimed that Duke University signed onto the DSP with certain preconditions. According to Jim Wilkerson who was present when Tallman Trask III Duke's executive vice president signed the DSP in February 2006 Duke signed the document without any conditions. 

Some universities however did sign on with a few reservations. The University of Southern California and the University of Miami were a few that did. Their concerns ranged the gamut from defining a living wage to broadening the membership base to include industry representatives.

The truth of the matter is that both sides have lost sight of what unites them. Instead of judging who's right and who's wrong both sides ought to focus on improving the lives of workers who make UNC apparel.

Where the disagreement among both sides lies is in the means of accomplishing that goal.

Believe it or not there is a solution that does not even involve the administration signing anything.

See part two next week.