NEWS
SLAC Attack: UW facing ultimatum
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Joanna Pliner:
- Labor group to give thanks (November 20, 2006)
- Judiciary revokes SAE's status at university (April 6, 2006)
- ASM weighs in on Halloween (September 4, 2006)
- FH King to receive funding, after all (September 19, 2006)
- UW says website causing 'ruckus' (October 9, 2006)
Related Stories:
- Group parties in chancellor's office (October 18, 2006)
- Wiley rebuffs SLAC efforts (March 2, 2006)
- SLAC accuses UW of spying (February 10, 2006)
- UW endorses licensing proposal (March 22, 2006)
- SLAC demands fair conditions (October 18, 2005)
by Joanna Pliner
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
Around noon Monday, approximately ten students from the University of Wisconsin Student Labor Action Coalition came knocking on Chancellor John Wiley's door.
The SLAC members presented staff members in Wiley's office with what they called an "ultimatum," insisting the university take a position against proposed alterations to the Designated Suppliers Program.
DSP is a plan formulated by United Students Against Sweatshops and the Worker Rights Consortium to regulate the way companies choose manufacturers of university apparel. DSP looks to make licensed manufacturers use unionized factories rather than sweatshop labor to manufacture products utilizing university logos.
According to LaMarr Billups, senior special assistant to the chancellor, UW was the first university in the nation to support DSP in 2005.
"If it wasn't for us, no universities would be at the table at all," Billups said. "This wouldn't be a discussion. They would still be out on Bascom Hill protesting."
In the ultimatum, SLAC addresses a part of the DSP proposal UW senior and SLAC member Nick Limbeck referred to as a "three-year exit."
According to Limbeck, the three-year exit would allow licensed companies to cut ties with unionized factories and revert to sweatshop labor.
"A factory would unionize, they would improve their situation, and after three years the factory would lose all the business," Limbeck said. "And that would be that."
Billups, however, said SLAC's ultimatum to the chancellor's office has "not accomplish[ed] anything."
Billups said DSP marks a major change in the way business is conducted between universities, licensees and suppliers and noted negotiation is part of the process. Billups added the three-year exit is a compromise SLAC members agreed to just last month.
If SLAC members wanted to make progress with the DSP initiative, Billups said, they should direct ultimatums to college students at other universities that have high university apparel sales rather than at the UW administration.
"I find what they are so-called demanding [to be] disingenuous," Billups said. "Instead of … working with their colleagues, which is critical to the success, they're playing games. That is not advancing the plight of workers around the world at all."
Limbeck said SLAC recognizes UW's leadership role in DSP, and added that is why SLAC presented the administration with their ultimatum Monday. The three-year exit would make it "impossible" to convert sweatshop labor into unionized factory work, Limbeck said.
The next Worker Rights Consortium meeting is in two weeks, and according to Limbeck, SLAC wants UW to represent their views.
"The students agree with the DSP, but by no means do we agree with this watered-down version," Limbeck said. "It undermines the goal of using factories, not sweatshops."
The demand from SLAC gave the university a deadline of Oct. 16 to state its position against the three-year exit program, which is one week before the next WRC and DSP working group meetings, which take place Oct. 23 and 24, respectively.
"We want the university to endorse our proposal and take a stand against the three-year policy as soon as possible, so that we can go into the working group meeting with a strong stance in support of the union factories — not sweatshops," Limbeck said.
When asked what they would do if the university does not meet their requests, Limbeck said any further actions have yet to be determined. It is the second time in as many years that SLAC has presented the chancellor with an "ultimatum" concerning sweatshop labor and university apparel.
Billups said the group's assertions about UW's position on DSP in the demand are erroneous, and he is a "little more than excited" about the issue.
"Students here have indicated that somehow the university and John Wiley are backing off this agreement," Billups said. "[But] if anybody's reneging, it's them."
Anonymous (October 10, 2006 @ 2:24am):
Wow, How in the fuck does SLAC get pretty much whatever they ask for from the university. Its kind of wierd, cuz everytime they threaten the university they get what they want (living wage, this sweatshop thing). Whats wrong with the administrators of this university...are they afraid of SLAC or something? Why aren't they saying Hell No!
Anonymous (October 10, 2006 @ 1:04pm):
Surprise surprise...SLAC not being collaborative and just being obnoxious.
End does not justify the means in the real world where there are shadows of repetition.
Relationships have to be fostered so that collaboration can occur and mutual respect and understanding can be found.
Yelling and stomping and crying is stupid.
Anonymous (October 10, 2006 @ 8:56pm):
SLAC-tastic!
