4207 Willow BrookSan Antonio, TX 78228
Phone: 210-732 895
Fax: 210 732 8324
Cell phone: 210-240-1084
December 9, 2005
Michael Kobori
Vice-President, Global Code of Conduct
Levi Strauss & Co.
1155 Battery Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
Dear Michael:
As you are aware, CJM and its supporters are very disappointed with the failure of Levi Strauss and Co. to enforce your Terms of Engagement (TOE). Although your TOE is very clear on the importance of protecting workers’ right to freedom of association, events in Gomez Palacio make it equally clear that Levi Strauss has completely failed to require that Lajat protect the rights of its workers. The fact is that the Lajat workers in Gomez Palacio were producing Levi’s jeans for many years and now the workers are locked out of the factory, blacklisted, and without any severance or hopes of reemployment just because they believed that they had the right to freedom of association and that Levi Strauss would protect that right by enforcing its Terms of Engagement.
After months of waiting for you to act and after hours of discussion with you, we have finally decided that your customers deserve to know that your claims to be a responsible employer are not truthful. Therefore, our members began to inform consumers of the facts at various Levi outlets around the US and Canada.
The letter you wrote to some Levi’s customers addressing their concerns about these issues and which was handed to CJM members by a store manager in Chicago is filled with misinformation and attempts to make LS & Co. look like it acted in good faith when, in fact, Levi has left workers in Gomez blacklisted and without jobs.
Levi’s failure to act ethically makes you complicit in the violation of Lajat workers’ rights. But instead of being outraged at what has happened, you are whitewashing the truth, portraying yourselves as a well-intentioned bystander. We could not disagree more. You have no less responsibility for these workers than if they were still producing jeans in your headquarters in San Francisco. The only conclusion there is left to draw is that Levi Strauss jeans are produced by sweatshop employers in Mexico.
The Lajat workers in Gomez Palacio were producing Levi’s jeans for many years, so it is strange that you say this plant was decertified for Levi just when you realized the workers were organizing an independent union. Levi Strauss is still Lajat’s biggest customer. In fact, workers now report that Levi’s production has increased at the Lajat Torreon plant. You have tremendous leverage with Lajat and you have failed to use it. You have failed to act with transparency.
Your letters to consumers and your Corrective Action Plan say one thing, but the reality is something else. What follows is a list that sets the record straight.
LS & Co. says you have not had authorized production in the Gomez Palacio facility since November, 2004.
The fact is your employee, Miriam Rodriguez, admitted in April that Levi’s jeans were being processed at the Gomez plant until at least the end of March 2005 when the workers finally succeeded in proving to her that Lajat was working Levi product there. This is, however, irrelevant, as, by contracting with Lajat, your code applies to all facilities of Lajat whether you have authorized production there or not. Also, during the crucial time that the workers were organizing and being fired for doing so, Levi’s jeans were being produced at Gomez. Levi’s subsequent actions in May, insisting Lajat rehire the organizers who were fired, acknowledged your responsibility.
LS & Co. reports that when apprised of the problem you investigated, worked with Lajat management to rectify the situation, wrote to the Mexican government, urged Lajat to negotiate with the workers, met extensively with CJM and a representative of the workers, etc.
We acknowledge that you did all these things, but that is not the standard to judge compliance with your own Terms of Engagement. Compliance must be measured by action, and your actions fall short in two areas:
Transparency. Despite our request your actions have been almost entirely unverifiable. Because you don’t want anything public, you would not give us a copy of your letter to the governor, nor publish it as we requested. Neither CJM nor Lajat workers have seen these letters, although LS & Co. said they would provide them to us. Were they indeed ever sent? The same is true for your conversations with Lajat management. We just have to take your word for it.
Your Code of Conduct is meaningless. Unfortunately we have been forced to conclude that self-enforcing codes like yours are for image building with the public and do nothing to respect workers’ rights. They may be good for some cosmetic changes, but they fail to empower workers to protect themselves. In the Lajat case, except for the reinstatement of the fired workers in May, every action you claim to have taken to pressure Lajat has been ignored by management.
You fill the workers with promises while sending a Corrective Action Plan that is in large part moot as the factory was shut down 2 days after you issued your plan!
LS & Co. said at the meeting on October 25th with CJM members and a worker representative in your San Francisco office, that you would tell Lajat to respect workers’ rights. Specifically you said you’d demand that they stop using the blacklist and stop visiting intimidating, threatening and harassing workers in the middle of the night at home.
The fact is that two days later, Lajat used police to assault and tear gas workers in the factory including two pregnant workers. Some house visits continued until November 25th and 28th, and workers report that they’re still on the black list. Paty Lujan, the chief security guard of Lajat and relative of the Bello family, has been harassing the workers since November 10th. On November 28th she ran her car at one of the workers, Ernesto Alvarado.
LS & Co. says in your Corrective Action Plan that you instructed Lajat not to use police in labor relations.
The fact is the very next day, the Lajat lawyer was out front of the factory surrounded by police barring entry and calling workers to sign their resignation. When CJM informed your representative, Miriam Rodriguez, of this she replied that she was informed a day before by Lajat that they would make an announcement to close the plant and Lajat called police because they were afraid of workers’ reaction against management; she added that Lajat told her the police are outside, not inside the factory and therefore they are not violating Levi’s CAP. The use of force, whether at the entrance of the plant or inside it, is unacceptable.
LS & Co. says you have encouraged Lajat management, CJM, and workers to meet to resolve their labor-management issues [and not severance], and requested Lajat set up a meeting with a neutral observer or mediator immediately.
The fact is this meeting never happened. This sort of assertion makes Levi seem to be acting as a proactive ethical mediator with its supplier and on behalf of the workers, but it is far from what actually occurred and omits crucial aspects of the history. What really happened was that someone from management sent the workers an unsigned note telling them to meet. The workers reasonably insisted after so many lies and tricks from Lajat that they have a formal process of negotiation, with a signed letter on company letterhead and sent a representative to tell management this. However, Miriam criticized the workers’ position saying that they should look for Lajat management and discuss their liquidation, which ignores the need to address the labor violations at Lajat. This was a clear departure from your CAP and from what the workers had clearly stated to you as their demands.
LS & Co. says that Lajat should drop the charges against Fernando Armijo, the worker arrested first for stealing a surveillance camera then (when police found the camera) for sequestro (holding the police against their will). LS&Co also said it is “committed to investigate the laws pertaining to the possible reimbursement of Mr. Fernando Armijo’s bail monies of 5,000 pesos.”
The fact is the charges against Armijo have not been dropped, nor has the bail been refunded. Furthermore, police harassment of the Lajat workers continues. Workers report being followed and harassed by police as they leave the CJM La Laguna Center and in other areas of the city.
LS & Co. says, “We are monitoring the status of the union application with Mexican and U.S. government officials and will continue to encourage them to support the workers' right to freedom of association.”
If Levi Strauss is committed to protecting the workers’ right to a free and independent union then you must insist that Lajat stop its union busting by closing the Gomez plant in retaliation for the workers’ organizing.
Levi Strauss says you “will not. . .shift production from other Lajat facilities to Gomez Palacio,” nor will LS & Co talk to other brands who use Lajat about producing there or even reveal to CJM the names of the brands which produce at Lajat’s other plants. In a teleconference in November with workers and CJM members you said “we can’t tell our suppliers how to run their business.”
If you cannot tell your suppliers how to run their business, and yet workers’ freedom of association is sabotaged by how your suppliers run their business, what is the point of Levi’s Terms of Engagement?
Because of Levi’s failure to make real difference and because the situation was clearly deteriorating for the workers, CJM reluctantly decided to go to Levi customers with this information. We began on Nov. 25 and are continuing to ask CJM members and allied organizations to pass out leaflets at stores where Levi’s are sold throughout the holiday season and beyond, if necessary. Campaign for Labor Rights will be sending an alert to a list of thousands requesting actions in support of the Lajat workers.
We know you can do better, and we hope that you do. Workers are considering going on a Hunger Strike during the Christmas holidays. It is in Levi’s hands to avoid this desperate action.
Following are the workers’ demands. We think you must realize by now that they’re not going away or giving up. Neither are we.
Lajat Workers’ Demands
- Reopen the Gomez Palacio Lajat plant and reinstate all workers who wish to return.
- Failing that, reinstate Lajat Gomez workers at the Torreon or other Lajat plants with paid transportation.
- Remove the workers’ names from any black list.
- Payment by Lajat in full of all benefits and overtime owed to the workers and payments owed for Infonavit, IMSS, etc.
- Respect for the right to freedom of association and an end to blocking a fair and honest union election.
Martha A. Ojeda, Executive Director
and the CJM Action Committee