Search

What is Collective Bargaining? Why It’s Central to Labour Justice

We are an online community created around a smart and easy to access information hub which is focused on providing proven global and local insights about sustainability

10 May, 2024

This post was originally published on Good on You

Collective bargaining is important for workers’ safety and wellbeing, particularly in the garment supply chain. But what does it mean? And how does it work? Here’s an overview of the most important aspects in five quick questions. 

1. What does collective bargaining mean?

Collective bargaining is the negotiation between workers and their employer for agreements around working rights, including conditions, safety, pay, overtime, and benefits. Being able to negotiate for these rights is fundamental to an equitable working relationship between a worker and their employer.

Negotiation on the worker’s behalf is usually done by a labour union or trade union, which is an organisation of workers that often has a nominated or elected representative.

Without this ability to negotiate, employees can end up trapped in poverty and dire working conditions. “In Bangladesh the garment industry has never allowed workers to raise their voices, the political focus has always been on the growth of the industry and keeping the international corporations happy,” explains Kalpona Akter, labour activist and founder of the Bangladesh Center for Workers Solidarity, in an interview with the UN Women. “It is this kind of power over workers’ rights that created the environment in which [the Rana Plaza] disaster was allowed to happen.”

 

2. What’s freedom of association—and how does that play into collective bargaining?

Freedom of association is the right to voluntarily form, join, and leave a group dedicated to advocating for or defending certain interests or rights. This allows employees, such as garment workers in the fashion supply chain, to unite and engage in collective bargaining to negotiate things like better working conditions or pay.

 

3. Why is collective bargaining so important in fashion?

When garment workers are banned from speaking up or defending their rights, factory employers can get away with offering them remittances well below the living wage, forcing them to work in unsafe conditions, and refusing to pay them for overtime. These poor practices are all to keep costs down for clients (which are often fast fashion brands), and make as much profit as possible.

Some of the world’s biggest garment-producing countries have become so thanks to their limitations on freedom of association and collective bargaining, allowing those in power positions to exploit workers. In many places, such as Bangladesh, regulations prohibit workers from unionising, and in others, people face intimidation, sacking, or worse if they associate with a union. This is called union-busting.

Notably, Bangladesh, Myanmar, and Turkey—three important garment-producing countries—all ranked in the top 10 worst countries for working people in the 2023 Global Rights Index (GRI). However, this statistic doesn’t mean they should be avoided. In fact, that could make matters worse—given the scale of the garment industry in these countries (the GRI reported that 4.5 million people work in Bangladesh’s garment sector), the loss of thousands of jobs as a result of boycotting could plunge workers even further into poverty. Additionally, there are companies doing better by workers in these countries that are worth supporting (look for “Good” and “Great” brands in our directory).

With labour rights abuses rife throughout garment supply chains (particularly in fast fashion ones), workers must have the opportunity to voice their concerns and demand better from their employers.

 

4. How many garment workers are unionised?

Facts on how many garment workers are unionised are few and far between, but back in 2016, Human Rights Watch reported that just 10% of Bangladesh’s 4,500 garment factories had registered unions.

It’s important to note that simply having a registered union isn’t a guarantee that a factory allows its workers to engage in collective bargaining or have true freedom of association. Some factories have created so-called company unions—also dubbed yellow unions—which are influenced or controlled by the employer, rather than its employees. Their purpose is often to please a client or comply with their code of conduct. As recently as December 2023, workers were reported to have faced threats and abuse after withdrawing from a company union at one of Levi’s suppliers.

Unionisation, collective bargaining and freedom of association remain vital to labour justice, and their significance in the garment industry shouldn’t be underestimated.

Nazma Akter, trade unionist and founder of the Awaj Foundation, told Forbes: “We have succeeded in setting up unions in some of the factories [in Bangladesh], and things are better there… For example, we have sexual harassment committees with representation by women workers. These new kinds of unions are run by the women and are not involved in politics like in the old days.”

Akter’s Awaj Foundation has also facilitated collective bargaining agreements between factories and women-led unions, one of which led to improved rights for pregnant workers and better maternity leave—another important factor in an industry where women workers occupy the majority of low-level roles but very few leadership positions.

 

5. How can we help garment workers gain more collective bargaining power?

Consumers, industry organisations, and unions alike must collectively call on brands to take responsibility for workers’ rights and wellbeing throughout their entire supply chains. We know that one of the biggest drivers of exploitation in the garment industry is the pressure brands put on their suppliers to lower costs and increase output, and the more we can publicly push these brands to behave better, the more likely they are to take notice.

The Clean Clothes Campaign reported that several brands refused to address issues of union busting at their suppliers in Sri Lanka until they were threatened with a public campaign revealing their inaction, which is just one of many examples of how publicising brands’ lack of transparency and action can force them to change.

With that then, here are some actions you can take: first and foremost, use your voice and purchasing power. For example, contact your favourite brands and ask them to sign the legally binding International Accord for Health and Safety in the Textile and Garment Industry, which was set up in the wake of the Rana Plaza disaster, and enforces a complaints mechanism for workers. The Good On You app has a feature that helps you contact brands easily and directly to give them feedback. And you can also boycott brands that are known to be associated with questionable suppliers, or that have poor “people” ratings in our directory.

It’s also important to stay educated on what’s happening—that way, you can inform friends and family, too. Check in on the news, and reference credible sources such as Human Rights Watch, Labour Behind the Label, Clean Clothes Campaign, and the Global Rights Index. Keep an eye out for our monthly news roundup, too, which brings you key stories from across the industry.

As consumers, it’s easy to feel helpless when these urgent issues are buried within supply chains controlled by big companies that bank on shoppers feeling too powerless to call for change. But there is action we can take, and even the smallest push can contribute something to the wider cause of garment workers’ rights.

The post What is Collective Bargaining? Why It’s Central to Labour Justice appeared first on Good On You.

Pass over the stars to rate this post. Your opinion is always welcome.
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

You may also like…

Navigating the supply chain for Scope 3 emissions

Navigating the supply chain for Scope 3 emissions

With more data centres transitioning to renewable energy sources, Scope 3 emissions become a data centre’s largest contributor to its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. This category of emissions is also the least reported and understood.

The focus on quantifying Scope 3 emissions in the value chain is part of a broader effort by organisations to assess and manage their environmental impact comprehensively. However, it requires a data-driven approach to helping data centre operators identify and categorise emissions from operations and the supply chain, then prioritise efforts to make impactful carbon reductions. This includes outsourced IT services from cloud and colocation service providers.

Undertaking this process allows for more informed decision-making and targeted efforts to reduce carbon emissions throughout the value chain. Developing a strategy that identifies the biggest source of carbon emissions in the value chain is quickly becoming a data centre industry priority, alongside the urgency to establish easy-to-use frameworks.

Data collection practices for a reporting framework

The effort to quantify and manage Scope 3 emissions aligns with broader trends in sustainability and corporate responsibility. Many organisations are recognising the importance of transparently addressing their environmental impact as part of their commitment to sustainable practices, but they don’t know where to start, which reporting framework to use, or how often they should be collecting and reporting data.

However, quantifying and reporting on Scope 3 presents a significant challenge for data centre operators. This is mainly due to a lack of three resources: reliable supplier data, quantitative tools, and an accounting and reporting methodology.

Establishing and implementing a framework that incorporates accurate carbon counting and target setting, while systematically reviewing company data and emission sources, is the foundation to creating an achievable reduction plan.

Electricity generation, GHG emissions and water consumption determine the carbon and water footprint of data centres, including that of its suppliers. To be successful, suppliers must provide data centre operators with their own Scope 3 emissions data, related to the products used in their data centres.

These emissions vary significantly depending on many factors including data centre size, redundancy level, location, electricity emission factor, core and shell construction, IT equipment configuration, energy efficiency, equipment lifespan and replacement frequency, and value chain activities.

Sustainability reporting can provide a competitive advantage

The proactive stance of data centre operators towards achieving net-zero climate goals reflects a broader shift in business attitudes toward sustainability. As environmental concerns become more prominent, companies are recognising the need to align their operations across the value chain with climate goals to meet the expectations of a diverse range of stakeholders including customers, investors and vendors, and contribute to a more sustainable future.

Aside from being a compliance necessity, GHG reporting encompassing Scope 3 emissions is increasingly being recognised as a strategic and beneficial practice for the data centre industry. It aligns with the growing emphasis on sustainability, helps manage risks, and positions companies as responsible and forward-thinking entities in an environmentally conscious market.

Robust emissions reporting can enhance investor confidence and attract investment from those seeking sustainable and responsible opportunities. Data centres that prioritise emissions reduction and extend their sustainability efforts to their supply chains can provide a competitive edge. A resilient and sustainable supply chain can contribute to business continuity and enhance the overall reputation of a company.

Vendor commitment to reducing embodied carbon

Scope 3 emissions are by far the most challenging to report for data centre operators who should integrate sustainability into their evaluation criteria when selecting data centre equipment suppliers and service providers to minimise Scope 3 value chain carbon footprint.

Vendors need to commit to reducing the embodied carbon of their product portfolio. Finally, data centre equipment suppliers must make environmental product disclosure documents freely available and easily understandable for their products.

By actively seeking equipment suppliers and service providers committed to reducing their environmental impact, data centre operators can play a crucial role in mitigating the overall carbon footprint associated with their operations related to Scope 3 emissions. The call for transparency and the availability of environmental product information further enhances the ability to make sustainable choices in the selection of data centre equipment.

Many organisations have focused on measuring and reporting Scope 1 and 2 emissions associated with their IT resources and implementing strategies to reduce them. Knowing where to start on your Scope 3 emissions metrics journey can be daunting. By quantifying Scope 3 emissions from their value chain, organisations can measure their total carbon footprint, including outsourced IT services from cloud and colocation service providers. Organisations can then prioritise their efforts to make impactful carbon reductions.

Schneider Electric offers many resources and tools to help organisations define Scope 3 emissions, including an inventory of nine emissions source categories and their data centre-specific subcategories for accounting and reporting purposes. This includes a modelling tool to simulate and model energy consumption within data centres that can help to estimate associated CO2 emissions. It also considers other factors such as power consumption, cooling systems, and overall data centre efficiency.

Its supply chain decarbonisation services help users leverage technology to measure and model resource use in the supply chain, educate and engage supplier partners, and support actions to decarbonise supplier operations.

By following these initial steps, data centres can expand their understanding of Scope 3 emissions and implement the right tools and measurement practices to work towards reducing their overall environmental impact and meeting reporting requirements with improving results.

Joe Craparotta

Top image credit: iStock.com/kohei_hara

Investing in Resilience: Blue Carbon Ecosystems, Communities, and Finance for the Indo-Pacific

Investing in Resilience: Blue Carbon Ecosystems, Communities, and Finance for the Indo-Pacific

Investing in Resilience: Blue Carbon Ecosystems, Communities, and Finance for the Indo-Pacific

Teaser Text
USAID’s “Investing in Resilience” report brings together the evidence and analyses that can help guide USAID Mission staff, partners, host country governments, and communities to advance blue carbon initiatives in the Indo-Pacific region.

jschoshinski
Tue, 11/12/2024 – 21:43

Publication Date
11/12/2024

Sectors

Natural Climate Solutions
Climate Finance

Country

Fiji
Kiribati
Republic of the Marshall Islands
Federated States of Micronesia
Nauru
Papua New Guinea
Philippines
Solomon Islands
Tonga
Tuvalu
Vanuatu
Micronesia

Region

Asia

Hide Sidebar
Off

0 Comments