I can't help but admire the Student Labor Action Coalition's efforts to support and publicize the plight of former Adidas workers in Hermosa, El Salvador. Sure, they are undeniably annoying, but I have never seen such effectiveness or dedication in raising awareness about an issue on this campus. Their experience serves as an excellent manual for student activism (as well as for driving poor Chancellor Wiley insane).

However, I am not so sure that their hoped-for ends justify their rebellious means. Tragically, boycotting Adidas will endanger the employment of hosts of workers with whom SLAC never consulted. Just as the hammer of their logo emulates the old Soviet insignia, their political imposition on third-world workers in the name of "solidarity" echoes the USSR's quasi-imperialistic system under the smokescreen of "worldwide proletarian revolution."

Don't get me wrong, supporting workers' rights and unionization worldwide has never been more important. The increasing liberalization of global capital — via the World Trade Organization, bilateral trade agreements and the like — combined with a huge worldwide labor surplus accompanying the historically recent entry of China, India and other formerly socialist and autarkic economies into world markets has made workers everywhere increasingly vulnerable.

As restrictions on foreign investment break down, global financiers can rapidly redirect their funding to the area or firm with the lowest cost of production. Many fear a resultant race-to-the-bottom in labor standards in order to cut expenditures and attract investment.

So, SLAC's heart, and in some ways its mind, are in the right place. However, I argue that their recommended remedy, a boycott, does not take proper account of the perspectives of those most affected by it and is also an inferior method by which to meet their goals.

"But wait", you say, "get your facts straight: SLAC has been engaging in a dialogue with the workers fired from the El Salvadoran Adidas plant and they are all for the boycott." True, and that is commendable, but those workers, unfortunately, have already lost their jobs.

The wide range of Adidas goods that UW orders come from plants all over the world, not only El Salvador. It is the workers still employed by Adidas who will bear the brunt of a contract cancellation, and to threaten their livelihoods without providing them an instrument for input is unacceptable in my mind.

"So, what would you do then?" There are a number of measures, both at micro and macro levels that can be effective. For one, I applauded the idea of sending inspectors to Latin American plants. Applying pressure to corporations to adhere to their codes of conduct is the only way to give these measures teeth. Inspectors can enact reforms within plants without the upheaval in employment connected to boycotts.

The best solutions, though, take place at the governmental level. A 1999 trade agreement between the United States and Cambodia has been a particular success. The two governments agreed that Cambodia's textile industry would receive increased access to the U.S. market on a yearly basis if, according to inspections by the International Labour Organization, it showed marked, systemic improvements in labor standards at its factories.

Since the program's inception, Cambodia's trade and export-sector employment have both grown and it currently enjoys the status of an "ethical niche" producer for global corporations.

Better yet, Cambodia has decided to continue the inspections on its own even though it now has full access to the US market. The program was ideal because it was freely negotiated between both affected parties and — via trade benefits — created, rather than eliminated, Cambodian jobs.

Unfortunately and inexplicably, the Bush administration has refrained from duplicating this immensely successful program elsewhere. And while I understand that SLAC may feel powerless to influence action at the federal level and prefer to focus action on measures with tangible effect, I don't doubt that a push by them for social clauses in U.S. free trade agreements would be influential, especially if done in conjunction with other campuses.

I hope that SLAC continues to push for retribution for the despicably treated workers in El Salvador. I think that the rapport the organization has established with workers many thousands of miles away is truly remarkable. It is a testament to what can be accomplished when a student group avails itself of the channels of communication and knowledge of the modern age. This group, as much as any on campus, combines theory with in-your-face practice.

But, just as the socialism it appeals to, SLAC's actions and application in the real world may diverge from or even contradict its ideals. I understand that a cancellation of UW's contract would be a blow to Adidas and have considerable, unquantifiable symbolic value. But it would also be a blow to Adidas workers living in the global South, and I'm not sure that I can stand for even one worker losing his or her employment without a mechanism in place for that individual's input.

We've got to find a way to make globalization benefit workers, not just capitalists, and in doing so we need to consider of the ramifications of our endeavors.

Action is important, and it is the strength of SLAC, but it must be accompanied by a thorough evaluation of empirical outcomes and moral imperatives. On the issue of the cancellation of UW's contract with Adidas, I find that John Lennon and I are in agreement: "When you're talkin' ’bout destruction [of jobs without sufficient worker input] you can count me out."

John Sprangers ([email protected]) is a junior majoring in political science and international studies.