| Worker exploitation in our own backyard |
|
|
| Tuesday, 18 December 2007 | |
|
Where Australian sweatshops were a thing of the 70s, 80s and 90s, these days money-hungry manufactures are employing and exploiting homeworkers (also known as outworkers). Homeworkers typically do the same tasks as sweatshop workers and endure similar unethical working conditions, the only difference is that employers save money on the costs of employing individuals fulltime, space and facilities by having their labourers work from their own homes.
According to the Textile Clothing and Footwear Union of Australia (TCFUA) there are about 300,000 homeworkers in Australia who work up to 15 or more hours per day, for as little as $2 -$3 an hour, seven days a week.
Most Australian homeworkers, also known as outworkers, are first generation migrant women who end up slaving away (quite literally) in our textile, clothing and footwear industries, for myriad reasons. Some do it because they have a history of working in slave labour, others because it allows them to work at home while caring for young children or elderly family members, or because this form of employment is one of a very small, select few jobs in Australia where being unable to speak the local tongue is not an issue.
Home-based work is often cash-in-hand, off the records and therefore unregulated labour. According to an article published by youth activist organisation ActNow, homeworkers ‘have no or minimal entitlements (such as holidays, sick leave etc), work in conditions that risk their health and safety, and work long hours to meet unrealistic deadlines.’
In 1998 Professor Michael Quinlan and Claire Mayhew of the University of New South Wales compiled a comprehensive survey, which compared the working conditions of 100 factory-based workers with 100 homeworkers. The findings showed that outworkers suffered more injuries than factory workers, presumably because homeworkers worked for longer hours ‘and that in turn was a response to very low rates of pay and the incentive payment system they were under,’ Quinlan explained. He added, ‘We found that typically clothing outworkers were being paid between 25 per cent and one third of the going award rate; as a result, to try to maintain a standard of living, they were working longer hours. These low rates of pay were directly due to the subcontracting system and the commercial pressures that resulted from the subcontracting system.’
This report also alarmingly demonstrated that while very few factory-based workers reported experiencing occupational violence, 49 per cent of outworkers were exposed to verbal abuse, 23 per cent to threats and 7per cent had experienced physical assault. Mayhew and Quinlan noted that, ‘The occupational health and safety of outworkers was unequivocally and significantly worse than that of factory-based textile, clothing and footwear workers,’ and that there was ‘considerable occupational violence involving the predominantly migrant women who work as clothing outworkers.’
Quinlan said this report debunked the myth, ‘that the home is a safe and family friendly,’ place to work ‘because these people were actually being assaulted in their own homes.’ He elaborates, ‘If somebody tries to assault you in a factory, it is a very visible act in front of lots of witnesses but you can be assaulted at home and no-one will see it. These people, because they are often recently arrived immigrants, are not going to speak out and report these sorts of issues particularly because they fear if they do they will never get any future work.’
According to an article published in the Green Left Weekly in 2002, retail companies deliberately employ sub-contractors, aka ‘middlemen’, to employ outworkers, thereby distancing themselves directly from being responsible for the conditions that outworkers endure. Quinlan was quoted in The Sunday Telegraph in 2001 saying, ‘What happens is that as these workplaces proliferate and move people out of factories where inspectors can check conditions, you end up with a situation that is impossible to police. The whole system basically becomes unenforceable.’
While it’s the big companies that dominate the industry that established and maintains this exploitative production chain, the middlemen further perpetuate the problem by trying to cut corners and make their own personal profits along the way. Sub-contractors usually make their profits by paying outworkers far less per piece than the sub-contractor receives from the business for manufacturing the item, or by forcing outworkers to work long hours in crowded or unhealthy conditions to meet unrealistic demands. Sometimes children help after school and on weekends to meet these unworkable deadlines.
There are laws in Australia to prevent worker exploitation, but the problem is enforcing these laws because outworkers are often isolated and are not usually registered employees.
According to a Victorian Parliament report, Outworkers in the Clothing Industry, compiled by the Family and Community Development Committee in 2002, there are two acts that aim to protect workers: the Occupational Health and Safety Act, which is the prevention act, and the Accident Compensation Act. The report stated however that despite these acts, ‘The reality is that in both there is quite a lot of uncertainty and ambiguity as to coverage. In some cases people may be covered and may not be aware that they are, and in other cases they may not be covered, and this is one of the problems.’ Mayhew and Quinlan noted that this complication was due to the complex employment relationships whereby it was sometimes difficult to tell who was the employer (accountable for the conditions) and who was the employee.
As public pressure and awareness gradually increase, changes to the outworker industry are slowly coming about, reports ActNow. ‘In 2002 the Retailers Ethical Clothing Code of Practice was introduced, making retailers, as well as manufactures, responsible for the fair treatment of outworkers. However, this code is voluntary, so although a number of Australian companies have signed part one of the code (agreeing to show their record), very few have signed part two (agreeing to pay minimum wages and provide safe work conditions etc).’
Yet there is hope. As individuals we can make a difference by becoming aware of which labels exploit, and alternatively which labels support their workers. Think critically before you purchase new clothes, about how they were made and under what conditions.
For a list of accredited manufacturing brands in Australia, click here. For more information on homeworkers check out these sites: WORDS: Kelly Griffin |
Thousands of straining Asian women of all ages arepacked into murky factories, bent over archaicsewing machines,slavinaway, quite literally,making countless garments, textiles and footwear hourupon hour, for as little as $2 a day.
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|