The University of California shocked anti-sweatshop activists Tuesday by opposing bills that would require state contractors to certify that they do not use sweatshop labor.
The pair of nearly identical bills, AB 1557 and SB 578, were passed by the state Legislature on Tuesday. The bills require anyone bidding for a state contract to certify that they provide employees with wages and working conditions that meet federal and state standards.
The bills also include a stipulation that would require state agencies, including the UC, to buy from California firms even if their bids are up to 10 percent higher than out-of-state companies.
This preference for California firms is the primary source of the university’s objections.
The UC opposes the bills because it fears the bid preference could have negative economic consequences, said Brian Revis, UC legislative director for admissions, outreach, and labor relations.
Revis said a preference for California firms could force other states to initiate similar measures or allow California firms to be inefficient.
“We are not opposed to better working conditions and safety; we want the flexibility to choose the lowest bid,” Revis said.
“We are also questioning where that extra 10 percent might go. ... It would increase the price of whatever we’re trying to buy, and it might just be someone’s profit,” he added.
The UC also objected to a passage in the bill requiring wages to “be sufficient to lift workers and their families out of poverty” because of ambiguities in the wording, according to a letter from Stephen Arditti, the university’s director of state governmental relations.
However, the UC has taken a strong stance against sweatshop labor, and is in favor of the standards for fairness that the bill proposes, UC officials said.
For example, the university’s Code of Conduct requires companies producing UC apparel to provide a prevailing or living wage, and that their employees work no more than 48 hours or 12 overtime hours per week.
But many anti-sweatshop activists see the UC’s opposition to the bills as contradicting its stance against sweatshop labor.
“They are speaking out of both sides of their mouths,” said Erica Zeitlin, an associate director for the western region of the No More Sweatshops! legislative coalition.
“They pay lip service to anti-sweatshop policies, but they opposed this historic anti-sweatshop legislation,” Zeitlin said.
Assemblywoman Loni Hancock, D-El Cerrito, authored AB 1557 and was surprised by the UC’s opposition to her bill.
“We were mystified. The UC is an in-state institution, supported by the taxpayers – it should not be opposed to an in-state provision,” Hancock said.
“Since when is paying decent wages and having decent working conditions a factor in efficiency? Unless you define efficiency as being cheapest and not having to adhere to health and safety standards and overtime laws,” she said.
Hancock explained that the purpose of the 10 percent preference is to prevent in-state firms from being disadvantaged by paying decent wages and having decent working conditions.
She questioned the probability of out-of-state companies having both competitive prices and decent working conditions, citing a U.S. Department of Labor statistic which lists half of U.S. sewing shops in violation of minimum wage laws.
“If (the UC’s) argument is that it would cost them more money, I would argue that it’s not worth it,” Hancock said.
Greg Wineger, manager of the UC office of financial management, said the extra cost of buying from more expensive California firms would fall on the backs of the students.
“We’re trying to keep more money in students’ pockets,” Wineger said.