Interview with Rob Wayss, Executive Director, Bangladesh Operations, the Accord on Fire and Building Safety in Bangladesh by Marianne Scholte
Dhaka, 23 September 2014
The Accord on Fire and Building Safety in Bangladesh has been criticized for closing readymade garment (RMG) factories in Bangladesh, failing to provide finance for necessary repairs and threatening the livelihoods of garment workers. Responding to these criticisms, Rob Wayss, the Executive Director of the Accord’s Bangladesh Operations, asserts that, rather than being a threat, the work of the Accord is a tremendous opportunity for the industry and for its workers and labor unions.
coming along?
Wayss: We just finished our initial inspections a week and a half ago. We inspected around 1100 factories, and we still have about 300 to deal with – common facilities with the Alliance. It has been a heavy schedule of inspections: we have been going non-stop for eight months.
Scholte: Of those 1100 initial inspections, how many factories
had to be shut down, and of the ones that had to be shut down, how many have
been reopened?
Wayss: We requested the government to evacuate 17 of
the buildings we inspected. Nine were immediately reopened after some aggressive
weight removal and load management measures – they had to remove stock, drain
water tanks, partially or fully evacuate floors, etc.
We had another
four where the building had to be completely evacuated and it will never
reopen. But those factory owners were able to immediately relocate all of the
workers and all the production to other facilities they have.
And then we
have four that were closed and remain closed. In two of those, the remediation,
including the remediation financing discussions, are underway and we are
hopeful that they will reopen. And then there are two tough cases where it
remains to be seen whether the factory will reopen or not. In one of these
cases, the factory owner filed a lawsuit against the Ministry of Labour and
Employment Review Panel, of which the Accord is a defendant.
Scholte: Four out of 1100 factories inspected where the
workers are presently not working. That is a relatively small number. But what
about wages for workers in the closed firms?
Wayss: We are getting a fair amount of grief on the
wage issue, but the problem has been substantially overstated. We have only a
couple cases where the workers have not been properly paid. Under Article 13 of
the Accord, the brands are required to make sure that the factory owner is
paying wages during factory closures or partial closures due to our
inspections. We are working with the brands, the owners and the labor
colleagues now to determine to what extent the Accord has been violated, and we
will work to rectify found violations.
Wayss: Yes, I was here for four years as the
Solidarity Center, AFL-CIO Country Director, and then I came back for two years
with the International Labour Organization (ILO).
Scholte: So you have been observing the readymade
garment (RMG) sector in this country for a long time. How do you view
developments now in this post-Rana Plaza period, including the work of the
Accord and the Alliance? What does all this mean for the future of the
Bangladesh garment industry?
Wayss: I see it as a tremendous opportunity for the
garment industry of Bangladesh. The Bangladeshi suppliers are receiving a huge
advantage over their competitors in the different countries that are producing
readymade garments and vying for the global market. The reasons for this are
terrible, but they are receiving from the Accord signatories a five-year
commitment to all of the provisions in the Accord: a two-year commitment to
volume; factory safety inspections by credible, independent engineers; technical
and financial support to fix the problems; verification that these problems
have been fixed; plus support to have improved structures in place at the
factory level to monitor safety and health – health and safety committees that
actually function.
And in the
process, if they do what they need to do, they will be able to advertise to the
world and credibly demonstrate that they have made their factories safe and are
keeping them safe and that is a tremendous advantage to them. Of course there
will also be public disclosure if they don’t fix things, but in most cases we
are finding that they are fixing things. And again, a lot of this is being
supported either financially or technically.
In
addition, they are getting political and financial support, particularly from
the European Union, the bilateral missions in North America and from the Japanese.
Many of these governments are providing support for RMG safety and compliance
programs, the biggest project of course being the one with the ILO and the
Ministry of Labour and Employment. So it is a tremendous opportunity and it
would be a real shame if the industry and the labor movement here don’t take
advantage of this.
Scholte: So what is your reading of the entrepreneurs
in general and BGMEA (Bangladesh Garment Manufacturers and Exporters
Association)? There has been some public complaining in the media, and one
would expect resistance because someone else is coming in and telling them what
to do…. but are many of them actually seeing this as an opportunity?
Wayss: Oh yes, most of the factories are working to
fix their factories based on the inspections and doing so in a good faith
manner. For instance, of the 1100+ factories, we did not have a single factory
where there was any resistance whatsoever to our inspectors getting into the
factory. Not a single case.
As for BGMEA,
we have a good relationship with them. We speak with their elected leadership
and their engineering and compliance teams every day. We have a monthly
bilateral meeting with them, where they have an opportunity to raise any issues
that they want with us. Notwithstanding some of the public commentary and media
stories, I assess that our relationship with BGMEA is strong.
Scholte: What about the Bangladeshi labor unions in the
RMG sector?
Wayss: The Bangladeshi labor unions have a responsibility
here. The IndustriAll affiliates are signatories to the Accord and have
obligations to support the Accord, in terms of outreach to workers who are
members of or in contact with the different IndustriALL RMG federations. And
they also have an opportunity as labor unions to help make factories safe,
which is obviously a central element of the work that labor unions have
historically done.
We are
working closely with 14 labor union federations. Six or so of them are very
active; the others are less active, but we are working with all 14 to make sure
that their elected officials, their resource people and their active members
understand the Accord well and understand how the inspections work, understand
what the reports look like.
Scholte: Who has access to these reports?
Wayss: Every single report was issued simultaneously to
the factory owner, the Accord brands that are in that particular factory and the
IndustriALL Bangladesh Council members. In those few factories where we had
information that there was a union, the factory-level union representatives
also received a copy of the report.
Scholte: So the unions can tie the brands to their
supplier factories?
Wayss: The public listing of Accord supplier factories
(on our website) discloses how many Accord brands are in a factory, but not
which ones, but the IndustriALL unions receive group correspondence related to
inspections and inspection reports where they would be able to determine which
brands are producing in a particular factory.
Scholte: And you are working with the unions in the
factories where IndustriALL has a factory-level union?
Wayss: We are working with IndustriAll unions to do
outreach with workers in all the factories. The 14 federations don’t have
registered factory-level unions in many factories, but in almost all of them
they have individual members or contacts. So, the IndustriALL affiliates are
arranging off-site meetings with workers, in the evenings or on the weekends. Sometimes
there are a dozen people, sometimes three dozen. But we would like to have at
least a small group of workers in each Accord-inspected factory that have a
copy of the report and the CAP (corrective action plan) and have sat down and
gone through these with someone who understands them.
We are
getting contact information on the workers that the IndustriALL colleagues are
speaking with, so that in our follow up we can make sure that the things that
need to get fixed actually get fixed. We contact workers in the factory, just
like we contact the factory owner and the brands, but also expect them to
contact us proactively as well. We are setting up this data base of contacts
and communication system.
And also we
are training IndustriALL staff on the work of health and safety committees. We
will be setting up safety and health monitoring systems at the factory level as
we move into the next phase.
Scholte: There are no health and safety committees in
the factories yet, right? You are still waiting for the implementation rules
from the government.
Wayss: Exactly. This is something the Accord is
engaged in intensively now, working with the Government of Bangladesh and the
ILO to get the rules published and making sure that people are prepared as we
enter the early part of 2015, when the election of the worker representatives
on the health and safety committees needs to begin.
Scholte: Ultimately the buyers are responsible to
ensure that this happens in their supplier factories, right?
Wayss: We hope that ultimately it is going to be the
government. The election of health and safety committees is mandated by the
government (in the Labour Act). But the Accord will have, I believe, a
significant oversight role to make sure that the elections are credible and to
deal with any irregularity in the elections, which I think people have to
expect. I mean history has shown in the EPZs (export processing zones), in particular,
that when committees were elected, there were some efforts to prevent certain
people from being nominated or cases where workers that the factory owners may
not have wanted on the committee were terminated. These are things that we have
to anticipate.
Scholte: How are you going to exercise this oversight?
Wayss: The first phase will be a massive outreach
program. We are creating a video informing managers and workers in the garment
factories how the nomination and election procedures will work, what they need
to think about when they determine whether they want to be on the committee or
who they want to vote for on the committee. We will supplement the video with
outreach events with workers and with factory management representatives to
prepare for the elections. We will seek the support of the brand and labor
signatories to support and assist with this outreach.
The second
phase will be the oversight of the elections. How extensive that oversight is
going to be I think is largely going to be determined by the rules, but
regardless of what the rules are, our oversight is going to be significant. The
Accord will be required to intervene in cases of irregularities like those we
spoke about. But we will also rely on our brands if there are problems with the
elections in factories that are producing their products. In that case, Article
17 of the Accord requires them to intervene with the factory owners as well.
Scholte: There is a potential conflict here, right?
Some of the suppliers will not want this and the buyers…
Wayss: It is not a choice. The health and safety
committees are required under the law and under the Accord. If there is a
union, the union appoints the worker representatives; if there is no union,
there has to be an election and those are requirements…
Scholte: There are a lot of requirements in this
country…
Wayss: Sure, sure, but that is the difference between
the Accord and some of the other things in the past: the Accord will be
executed and is enforceable.
Scholte: So what happens in the case of non-compliance
if there are some supplier firms that drag their feet or manipulate the
process, and I imagine there are going to be some, right? What if you
ultimately can’t solve the problems?
Wayss: Well, ultimately we can solve them, because if
the supplier is unwilling to meet the requirements of the Accord, then the
brand at that point would be required to sever their business relations with
that factory, and any other brands or retailers that are signatories are
prohibited from sourcing there. And we have some cases where we are getting
close to that.
We make
sincere, vigorous, good faith efforts to try and bring the factories into
compliance. If it is a matter of technical support, we make our engineers available
to them; if it is a matter of financial support, we work with them and the
brands, because the brands have obligations to provide support if the suppliers
need financial support for their remediation. We make a good faith effort, but
the good faith effort has to be reciprocated with action and if they
continually don’t do it, then the brands are required to sever their business
relations with the factory and this information will be disclosed publicly on
our website. But that is a last resort.
Scholte: What are the issues involved in these cases
where you are getting close to severing business ties?
Wayss: Some were inspections that had very serious
findings. Although we didn’t ask the government to evacuate the building, we
did require the factory owner to take some very, very aggressive immediate
action. And we have a few cases where the factory owners have taken some of
those immediate aggressive actions, but haven’t been following through on other
things. Some of them have not been addressing things at all for several months.
So we are getting to the point where we are formally communicating very real
threats that will be followed through.
Scholte: So how many factories does this involve?
Wayss: There are about 110 cases where significant,
aggressive measures are required. But only a handful are in real danger of
having their business relations with Accord brands severed.
Scholte: What about financing? If they have to do
things quickly, is financing the big issue here?
Wayss: Yes, in some factories it is. We have taken a
fair amount of criticism from local industry in particular, but also from the
local and international media, that the Accord, but the Accord brands are not
meeting their obligations as it relates to supporting the remediation
financially.
So, in July
we introduced a standard operating procedure, whereby the Accord case handlers –
and our international staff participate in this as well – are facilitating a
telephone call or face to face meeting with the lead brand in each factory
together with the factory owner or the factory owner’s representative. Before
Brad Loewen, the Accord’s Chief Inspector, will approve a CAP and finalize it,
we need to receive confirmation from the brand and the factory owner that they
have had the conversation on financing and that the finances are there. This is
then disclosed on our website – not which brand is providing what, but that
financing has been discussed and arranged. For our own internal purposes, we
are collecting information on the composition of the different kinds of support
in each factory.
Scholte: There has been a lot of confusion about this
point because Clean Clothes and the Worker Rights Consortium went around saying
that the brands were obligated to pay and that is not what the Accord says, the
Accord says the brands have to ensure…
Wayss: Clean Clothes and the Worker Rights Consortium
didn’t say that the brands were obligated to pay. They said that the brands
were obligated to support the remediation financially. The message has never
been that the brands have to pay, and we have made that very clear. Certain parties
here in country told people, “Oh don’t worry about it, because the brands have
to pay for everything.”
We have
done programs now with about 4000 supplier representatives, and we have
explained Article 22 of the Accord in great detail. And the first point we made
and we say it three times: “This provision does not mean that the brands are
going to pay for everything. The expectation is that you as the factory owner
or you as the building owner are going to pay to repair your building. That
being said, if you as the factory owner do not have the resources or do not
have access to the resources to pay for the remediation within the timelines in
the CAP, the brands that are in your factory, that are signatories to the
Accord, are obligated to work with you to find a package of support and
financing for the remediation, so that the remediation can take place within
the timelines in the CAP.” So they are obligated and it is happening.
Scholte: But still it is a conflictual discussion,
right? The suppliers are going to say we don’t have the funds…
Wayss: Yes, it is a negotiation between the brands
and their suppliers. But the brands generally have a decent idea about the
condition of the supplier. They will do a little bit of their own research and consult
with others to try and get as clear a picture of the financial situation of the
factory owner as possible. And then the brands, quite frankly, are going to
bargain with them; the suppliers might be expected to say that they don’t have
the money. There are cases where the factory owners do need support. And we are
working with the brands and the factory owners to make sure that in those cases
the obligations under the Accord are met.
Scholte: But there are some indications that some of
your brands are simply pulling out. The Steering Committee minutes of 7 August
2014, for example, says some brands are exiting factories for non-valid reasons
in violation of Article 23 which requires them to maintain order volume for two
years. How extensive is this problem and what are you doing to address it?
Wayss: The Accord and Steering Committee are
currently researching allegations of/the extent of "exiting" and are
obtaining information on reasons in those cases where we find any anomalies.
This effort/work is ongoing.
Scholte: Aren’t there also talks with the IFC
(International Finance Corporation)?
Wayss: Yes, the IFC has established a guaranteed loan
fund and a number of our brands are working with the IFC to set these up. The
loan is in a hard currency, euro or US dollar; the interest rates are quite low
in comparison to what would be otherwise available and the repayment period is up
to three years. The IFC puts up the money, makes the arrangement with the local
agent bank and organizes the contract between the bank and the supplier that
wants to access the money. The brand, based on the remediation plan or the CAP,
informs the IFC that a particular supplier is permitted to access the
guaranteed loan instrument they have set up and specifies the amount of the
loan to be extended.
Scholte: Have any loans been disbursed?
Wayss: Only one so far, VF Corporation – not an
Accord brand. But a number of our brands have approached IFC to set up these
loans and are in the process.
Scholte: Last question: Are you working at all with
government labor inspectors?
Wayss: To some extent, yes. Brad works closely with
the civil defense and fire service and with the Labour Ministry, the Inspector
General and his team. And as we get into the middle stages of the Accord now,
he will be offering support to labor inspectors and civil defense and fire
service people in terms of accompanying our inspectors, training opportunities.
The primary thrust of that type of support, however, is through the ILO project
with the Ministry of Labour and Employment.
We also work
very closely with the Inspector General, particularly on the Review Panel
cases, of course, but we are often requesting the support of the Inspector
General on the immediate action cases, because these issues that we are finding
in our inspections are also violations of the labor requirements.
Scholte: Mr. Wayss, thank you very much for your time.
Wayss: My pleasure.
©Threads and borders.All rights reserved. www.threadsandborders.blogspot.de 
Keine Kommentare:
Kommentar veröffentlichen