Features > May 14, 2007
Doing It For Themselves (cont’d)
“We know Whole Foods buys these tomatoes, says Sean Sellers, co-coordinator of the Student Farmworker Alliance, a CIW sister group. “We know Wal-Mart and Costco do, too.”
Papering over the market
The wave of social movements washing over the corporate bow does not please everyone. “Managers, acting in their professional capacity, ought not to concern themselves with the public good. … [T]hey lack the democratic credentials for it,” sniffed The Economist in a 2005 story on the dangers of corporate social responsibility. And that raises the question: If legislatures fail to respond to public pressure, is engaging with corporations the best way left to advance social change?
Dean Baker, an economist and director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, says that while activists always risk co-optation, they can use corporate campaigns to mitigate business’ worst behaviors. “It’s not the only tool by any means,” he says, “but when you look at what tools are available, you get ‘em where you can get ‘em.”
Despite the honeyed words of “social compliance” officers, the literature of the business-school set is clear: Ultimately, the diktat of corporate social responsibility is to protect the brand’s reputation and control threats to sales and supplier relationships. In Europe, for instance, McDonald’s has introduced organic milk and banned genetically modified food. Without effective state regulation or strong NGOs driving public antagonism here, corporations like McDonald’s haven’t taken such ethical considerations across the Atlantic. “Global brands, whether it’s McDonald’s or Adidas, view labor rights issues not as a moral question but as a risk management question,” says Scott Nova, executive director of the Worker Rights Consortium. “They will make change to the extent that risk to their brand reputation justifies making change.”
Unless corporate social responsibility programs surrender power to affected communities and workers, the new regime of monitoring and codes of conduct will prove ineffective. “The result is at best managerial paternalism,” writes Pun Ngai, a Hong Kong academic who studies Chinese factories’ adaptations to corporate social responsibility. At some level, activists have themselves to blame for the failings of social compliance. The initial voluntary standards and certifications arose largely from governmental and NGO initiative, not from corporations sensing a market opportunity or acting to protect reputation, says Tim Bartley, an Indiana University sociologist who researches corporate social responsibility. These voluntary measures tied in neatly with neoliberalism, which champions self-regulation over public standard-setting. What’s more, corporations quickly learned that self-regulation was a model over which they could exert control.
The result has been a jumbled map of certification schemes and PR blitzes, leaving consumers to wade through information about corporate behavior without any way to separate the disingenuous or delusional from the decent. The CIW fought off an attempt last year by McDonald’s to defuse its campaign through such a Potemkin-village maneuver. Working with a Florida agricultural trade group, McDonald’s created an industry front called Socially Accountable Farm Employers (SAFE) that issued a competing monitoring plan—without bothering to consult the tomato pickers. “SAFE isn’t going to stand up because it lacks worker input in design and implementation,” Perkins says. “You can’t do social responsibility on the cheap.”
The raft of corporate good-news propaganda has at least one advantage, activists say. It opens new points of leverage against their targets. “Less than a decade ago, farm animal concerns were considered far outside the mainstream,” says Paul Shapiro, who leads the Humane Society of the United States’ farm animal campaigns. “Now it’s within the mainstream. No company wants to be in the position of defending abusive practices and being seen as out-of-step.”
Becoming an irresistible force
Tomato pickers aren’t exactly a class of workers used to a sense of entitlement. Because they receive less than 1.5 pennies per pound picked—a rate that’s stayed constant for 30 years—workers must hoist on average two tons of tomatoes a day to make $60. Federal surveys of Florida farm workers put their annual incomes at about $10,000.”If you can get a job in construction, landscaping, you take it,” says Sellers. “Picking tomatoes is one of the lowest rungs of the employment ladder in the United States.”
Legislation stretching back to the 1935 National Labor Relations Act has created two-tier systems of work (as would the current Gutierrez-Flake immigration bill) and excluded farm workers from the right to union representation. Benefits like overtime pay, health care and sick leave don’t exist for farm workers.
Against those odds, the CIW demanded a transformation of work life—and began within its own organization. Staff members keep their salaries on par with what tomato pickers earn. Since its inception, the CIW has run a food co-op providing basic necessities in an area where grocery stores ran up prices because few workers had transportation to seek out cheaper goods. And in an industry with pandemic turnover, the coalition found ways to keep leaders in the community. Every summer, a watermelon pickers’ co-operative of 15 coalition staffers and full-time pickers slowly works its way north, dividing work and wages equitably. By cutting out the traditional crew leader, the co-operative doubles each picker’s wage—to around $150 a day—and embarks on an exercise in practical political education.
“This is a workers’ co-operative in the context of Southern agriculture,” says Sellers, who has picked watermelons the last two summers and plans to again this year. “When does that happen?”
The farm workers also have side-stepped the limitations of their progenitors, the anti-sweatshop and fair-trade movements. Efforts to end sweatshops have been overwhelmed by the constant pressure apparel brands exert on suppliers to reduce prices, Nova says. The WRC, like the farm workers, is pursuing a strategy that would assure workers receive a livable wage by giving well-behaving factories better-paying contracts. The idea of funneling higher wages to people who bring goods to consumers in rich countries is borrowed, of course, from the fair-trade movement. But unlike fair trade, the CIW and anti-sweat campaigners are attempting to force corporations to pay more to production workers across entire industries, instead of carving out a niche through certification schemes that allow companies to slap a label on products.
The coalition has the ear of those astride the market. When asked in February whether they would support the coalition’s demands, Burger King declined, offering the tomato pickers work in its restaurants instead. Irritated, the coalition pointed out their members already had jobs. The country’s second-largest burger chain shrugged, dispatching its spokesmen to say they simply couldn’t dictate terms to their suppliers.
After McDonald’s folded, however, the directives from fast-food corner offices became more measured. In mid-April, a Burger King spokesman said the company was “always ready to talk … and see what we can work out.”
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments
-
register a new account »Posting Security
Member Login
Also by Mischa Gaus
- No Match? No Mas!
The Department of Homeland Security is trying to force employers to either fire workers whose names and Social Security numbers don't match. Widespread job loss often results when the government dons its immigration-enforcement blinders - The Olympic Hustle
Chicagoans are already beginning to fear what hosting the 2016 Summer Games might do to their city - Doing It For Themselves
The Coalition of Immokalee Workers turns 'corporate social responsibility' from oxymoron into reality - Interrogations Behind Barbed Wire
Who's to blame for America's new torture techniques? - Starbucks Gets Wobbly
Embattled baristas at the coffee giant turn to the Industrial Workers of the World for solidarity unionism - Students vs. Sweatshops, Round III
The Designated Supplier Program targets college clothing companies
Popular Discussions
- Acknowledging the Race Chasm
51 posts since May 9 08 - Atheism’s Unholy Trinity
50 posts since May 20 08 - ‘The Kosovo Dilemma’ goes astray
The 1999 NATO-led bombing against Serbia was a humanitarian intervention, not a U.S. and European power grab
22 posts since Jun 25 08 - The American Left: What Progressives Can Learn from Obama
16 posts since Jun 24 08 - New Jewish Lobby Counters Neocons
13 posts since May 15 08
© 2007 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
