Oregon Blocks Public Colleges From Enforcing Anti-Sweatshop Codes of Conduct By MARTIN VAN DER WERF
The public hand-wringing at the University of Oregon over its membership in an anti-sweatshop group is apparently coming to an end. The Oregon State Board of Higher Education has adopted a policy that will effectively prevent the institution from enforcing its code of conduct or joining any other group that has one that tries to set rules for a workplace.
The new policy was written because of apparent conflicts between the code of conduct and Oregon state law, which seeks to guarantee that any company that wants to do business with the state be given the chance to do so if it can demonstrate that it is not engaged in any illegal behavior, and has the capability of doing the job.
The university's code required that companies making products that bear the Oregon name or logo must, among other provisions, pay a "living wage," limit work hours, not employ children, pay women and men equal amounts, and recognize employees' rights to freedom of association and collective bargaining.
However, that code will be superseded by the new policy, which was adopted on February 16, said Benjamin E. Rawlins, director of legal services for the Oregon University System, which includes the University of Oregon, and seven other state institutions, including Oregon State University. All must be in compliance with the new policy by the end of the year. The policy will cover all purchases from all vendors supplying the institutions.
The University of Oregon announced in April that it was joining the Worker Rights Consortium, a group that includes more than 70 colleges and universities, and that has been heavily critical of worker abuses in apparel-manufacturing facilities used by the major providers of licensed collegiate wear.
That announcement cost the university the financial support of one of its biggest backers, Philip H. Knight, founder and chairman of Nike and an Oregon alumnus. He has given more than $50-million to the institution but has said that he will not give any more.
Following Mr. Knight's statement, university officials started to question the group's legal standing, and refused to pay its dues.
However, the university was not behind the state system's new policy, said Mr. Rawlins.
"There was a discussion that there are existing state regulations on procuring services, and there were also growing issues of social concern where the buying power of the state was being talked about as a tool," he said. "The board chose an approach that underscored the existing policy of the board, which is to encourage open competition."
Maureen Shine, a spokeswoman for the University of Oregon, said the policy was about "neutrality." Joining any anti-sweatshop group, including the Fair Labor Association, of which Nike is a member, "would not be in compliance with a policy of neutrality," she said.
Scott J. Nova, executive director of the Worker Rights Consortium, said he thinks there are ways the Oregon universities could still be members of his group.
"One example of the maneuvering room universities would have under this policy is that it requires companies to obey the law," said Mr. Nova. "Most times that a company violates our code of conduct, they are violating either local law or international law. So we think our code is consistent with this policy."
Ms. Shine said she could not say whether the new policy would warm her institution's relationship with Mr. Knight. A Nike spokesman said Mr. Knight would have no comment.