The Herald’s Nov. 10 article on the Student Labor Action Coalition’s celebratory action at the chancellor’s of?ce (“SLAC’s love-hate affair with UW”) missed the point. It is true SLAC recently chastised the university for a recent change in policy that denies certain unionized workers the right to attend union functions, and it is also true we praised Chancellor Martin for her swift action to stop Nike’s abuse of sweatshop labor.
It is incorrect, however, for the Herald news staff to invent a “love-hate affair” between SLAC and Chancellor Martin. These issues are not about “loving” or “hating” the chancellor. Rather, we simply believe that some of the university’s policies are praiseworthy, while others deserve criticism.
We regret that the Herald glossed over one of the issues we raised — the treatment of campus workers — and instead chose to create a ?ctional narrative of personal animosity where none exists. The issue is simple: Recently, the UW administration unilaterally changed a longstanding policy that allowed unionized campus workers to take adequate time off to attend union events, as their contract explicitly allows. Under the changed policy, second- and third-shift workers would be forced to stay awake for three days straight simply to attend a one-day conference.
While the article did note this change disproportionately affects the most diverse workforce on campus, it neglected to explain what the change in policy actually was or why it is important. The Herald can do better.
In contrast, the coverage of Nike’s labor violations was informative and commendable. Equally commendable is Chancellor Martin’s assertion in her letter to Nike that “under the university code of conduct, it is Nike’s responsibility to ensure that alleged labor rights violations by [its] subcontractors are remedied.”
When students buy UW apparel, they should be con?dent it was manufactured ethically — in other words, in a way that upholds the good name and high standards of
UW-Madison. The conditions under which UW apparel is made re?ects on the university itself, and when Nike ?outs its legal and moral obligations to its workers, we must hold them accountable.
From Edwin Witte to Robert La Follette, the University of Wisconsin has a long and proud tradition of involvement in positive social change. In holding apparel companies accountable for illegal and unethical labor practices, UW sends the message that it takes seriously its role as a vehicle for the common good. Chancellor Martin has shown a willingness to do just this and we commend her for it.
SLAC believes that the rights of garment workers around the world are every bit as important as the rights of those in the Memorial Union kitchen — the ?ght for dignity and respect on the job is universal. That’s why we’re standing in solidarity with the workers of AFSCME 171 and ?ghting to reverse this policy change, and that’s why we campaign against companies like Nike that continue to violate the rights of garment workers — a ?ctional “love-hate affair” has nothing to do with it.
Sincerely,
Daniel Cox, SLAC member and UW junior majoring in sociology
Jan Van Tol, SLAC member and UW senior majoring in computer science and Russian
