Author: Oxfam Canada

Statement: Oxfam Stands with Bangladeshi Garment Workers

by Oxfam Canadain News

Oxfam stands in solidarity with the Bangladeshi garment workers, activists, trade unions and worker representatives who advocate for increasing the minimum wage to Tk. 23,000 per month. We strongly urge all international fashion brands that source from Bangladesh to support trade unions’ demands for an increased minimum wage, particularly Canadian fashion brands like Joe Fresh, Lululemon and Roots. 

We are deeply concerned about the violent attacks by police against peaceful worker protests in Bangladesh. The mounting violence is unfolding as garment workers rightfully demand fair negotiations to increase their minimum wage from Tk 8,000 to Tk 23,000, at this time of serious economic stress both nationally and globally. We mourn the loss of Rasel Howlader, a garment factory worker, who was shot dead by police earlier this week. Several labour organizers have been unjustly arrested and some union federation offices have been forced to shut down, while hundreds of garment workers have been injured.  

This year’s minimum wage revision is unfolding in a challenging environment for workers and the labour rights movement in Bangladesh, with tensions rising due to the upcoming national election. The tragic murder of trade unionist Shahidul Islam in June serves as a stark reminder of the oppressive conditions under which these wage negotiations are taking place. During the last round of minimum wage negotiations in 2018, one worker lost their life, dozens were injured and thousands lost their jobs.  

On October 22, 2023, the employer representatives submitted a proposal to the Minimum Wages Board to increase the minimum wage to only Tk. 10,400, less than half of what trade unions are calling for. Bangladesh trade unions, worker representatives and civil society organizations expressed their concern about this situation and have issued a public statement in response to the employer representatives’ proposal. The employers’ association, Bangladesh Garment Manufacturers and Exporters Association (BGMEA), issued a warning that its members would temporarily close factories if the unrest continues. Oxfam perceives BGMEA’s ‘no work no pay’ position as a pressure tactic to weaken support for an increase in the minimum wage.   

Key Facts: 

  • The minimum wage for the women who make our clothes in Bangladesh has remained unchanged since 2019 at Tk. 8,000 per month (US $73). Meanwhile, the cost of living has significantly risen due to inflation, with food prices increasing by 21% to 50% between 2022 and 2023.  
  • The current minimum wage (Tk. 8,000) is only 35% of what workers should be paid to receive a living wage. A living wage, which should be earned within 48 hours/week, should at least cover nutritious food, housing, utilities, healthcare, childcare, education, clothing, transportation and other essential needs, including savings for unexpected events.  
  • Based on a thorough cost of living study conducted by the Bangladesh Institute for Labour Studies (BILS), any wage below Tk. 23,000 will not be enough to enable workers to support themselves and their dependents.  
  • The trade union demand closely aligns with the Global Living Wage Coalition. 
  • During the official visit of the UN Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights to Bangladesh in May, he addressed the issue of poverty wages and highlighted all workers have a right to remuneration, which provides them, at a minimum, fair wages and a decent living for themselves and their families.  

Oxfam strongly urges fashion brands in Canada that are sourcing from Bangladesh to make a public statement supporting union demands to increase the minimum wage to Tk. 23,000 and calling on the government of Bangladesh to include all relevant stakeholders in minimum wage negotiations, ensuring the safety of all trade unionists, activists and garment workers.  

Aritzia’s little secret

by Oxfam Canadain Resources

By Nirvana Mujtaba

Rya has been working in the same garment factory in Cambodia for the past four years. Now forty years old, she has been a garment worker since 2007 and knows firsthand the harsh realities that persist under the shadows of glamorous fashion brands. 

Her daily routine involves waking up early in the morning, often as early as 5 am, to prepare food for the busy day ahead. She arrives at the factory at 7 am and works for long hours, often without breaks. When asked about how she feels about her work, Rya expressed exhaustion and frustration, adding that she works long hours often without breaks and that the working conditions in the factory are terrible. 

Rya works 8 to 10 hours a day, and earns $200USD per month. Photo: Caroline Leal/Oxfam
Rya works 8 to 10 hours a day and earns $262 CAD per month. Photo: Caroline Leal/Oxfam

Rya works 8 to 10 hours a day and her salary is $262 per month, which isn’t enough to survive. If she works overtime she can make around $354 per month. She will send $197-220 home to her family and keep $131 to pay for everything else – rent, food, utilities. If it turns out not to be enough, she’ll borrow money from others and when her next pay comes, she’ll pay off some debt, send some home and keep little for herself. The cycle keeps repeating. 

 “We earn so little here compared to other countries. We are all humans; how come we are only scraping by, only able to afford a small rental room to share with others, whereas overseas workers sleep in air-conditioned room.”

Rya

Rya, conveys a powerful message for everyone: “I have a message for the young people and students who like to buy these branded goods – to please spare a thought for the workers here who work tirelessly, more than workers in Canada, and for a much lower wage. So, they get to have a much better life than us”.

While workers are kept in poverty, Aritzia gets richer

Rya’s story is a stark reminder of the extreme disparities that exist in the world. A garment worker in Cambodia works tirelessly and, on average, earns poverty wages of only $262 per month, struggling to make ends meet. These poverty wages aren’t enough for them to afford decent housing, nutritious food, utilities, education, transportation, healthcare, childcare and saving for unexpected events. The women who make our clothes must be paid at least a living wage that covers a decent standard of living. 

On the flip side of this grim reality, Canadian fashion brand Aritzia soared to new heights last year, boasting a remarkable $2.2 billion in annual net revenue, and shattering its previous sales records. 

With an over $700 million increase from the previous year, this explosive growth highlights the company’s financial strength and growing market position. However, this success comes at a cost – a cost borne by the garment workers in Aritzia’s supply chain. 

As Aritzia celebrates its financial success, the women who make our clothes in the global South earn between $4-$11 per day. By contrast, Aritzia’s CEO, Jennifer Wong, was paid roughly $1,803 per hour last year. A garment worker in Cambodia, where Aritzia sources many of its products, would need to work full-time for more than three years to earn what Aritzia’s CEO makes in just one day. 

The current minimum wage in Cambodia is only 87 percent of what workers should be paid to receive a living wage, which is around $319 per month. By definition, a living wage should be earned in a standard 48-hour working week and be sufficient to afford a decent standard of living for a worker and their family. Fashion brands in Canada need to stop weaving poverty into the clothes that we wear.

Pay inequality isn’t the only problem with Aritzia

Massive pay inequality isn’t the only problem. Aritzia does not publicly disclose crucial information such as their supplier factory names, locations, types of products made, breakdown of the number of workers by gender and other gender identities of their sourcing factories. General information about their supplier countries, as well as the percentage of finished items sourced from each country, isn’t sufficient.

Supply chain transparency is critical for labour and human rights advocates, trade unions and worker representatives, and shows a degree of accountability by major brands and retailers. Brands can benefit from publishing their supplier lists as it allows them to receive timely and credible information from worker representatives which can help mitigate risks of human rights abuse. For instance, if Aritzia discloses its supply chain, workers and their representatives can share timely and credible information with the fashion brand about poverty wages or other labour rights violations. 

In our view, Aritzia’s public reporting on environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues is lacking compared with many of its industry peers. 

Here’s a glimpse into Aritzia’s work over the past few years:


What Artizia says when it comes to living wages

Aritzia says they are reviewing their practices and encouraging two-way dialogue with their suppliers to “collaboratively develop a roadmap toward economic security.”In their 2023 ESG report, Aritzia placed high importance to human rights, working conditions & living wages on their materiality matrix.

What we think

There’s a lot missing. Aritzia has not made a credible commitment to paying living wages to the workers within their supply chain. There is no detailed information on their progress made towards workers economic security, how they are implementing wage ladders. In 2021, Aritzia scored amber on making a commitment on the What She Makes brand tracker because the company engages with appropriate stakeholders on economic security for workers but hasn’t made a commitment nor set a timeframe to pay a living wage.  

Furthermore, Aritzia’s supplier code of conduct (CoC) does not yet align with workers economic security as it only requires adherence to local minimum wage requirements. Unfortunately, these local wage standards are often insufficient, given the competitive environment of sourcing country suppliers striving to attract foreign investment by maintaining low labour costs. 


What Artizia says about their data driven approach to information gathering and wage analysis

On Aritzia’s website they mention; “We take a data-driven approach to information gathering and wage analysis, which is part of deepening our understanding of wages throughout our supply chain. With this information, we’re building wage ladders throughout our supply chain and defining next steps.


What we think

Their claim to build wage ladders throughout their supply chain has not followed through their reports or any publicly available resources since 2021, when Aritzia scored amber on the WSM brand tracker on making a commitment to paying living wages. 


What Artizia says when it comes to supply chain disclosure 

“We understand that a well-managed supply chain is integral to build a stable, successful and sustainable business. With this in mind, we partner with the best-in-class fabric, trim and finished goods suppliers, defined not only by the quality of the product but also how they work.”


What we think

Aritzia’s claim of partnering with best-in-class suppliers could not be verified since they do not disclose:

  • names of supplier factories, location and addresses
  • name and address of parent company (if applicable)
  • types of product made at each factory
  • breakdown of workers by gender per factory
  • the sourcing channel (direct sourcing or through agents)

Aritzia reports their sourcing countries for finished goods and fabric suppliers and the percentage of finished goods procured from their sourcing countries. This isn’t enough to validate their claim.


What Artizia says when it comes to human rights impact assessment 

In 2022, Aritzia said “Over the past year, we conducted a Human Rights Impact Assessment across our value chain, and the findings are being socialized to inform our programming and guide Aritzia as we update our mitigation strategies to focus on addressing the identified priority human rights issues, should they persist.”. In 2023, Aritzia said; “Over the past year, we’ve conducted a Human Rights Impact Assessment and shared the findings internally. Moving forward, these findings will inform how we review our practice and continue to improve by implementing measures to address any identified issues or risks.”


What we think

It’s great that Aritzia conducted a human rights impact assessment. However, what were the company’s findings? What are the human rights abuse risks (if any) that they found within their supply chain? What is their risk mitigation strategy? Why is it only shared internally? Why not publicly?

Download the full report including research notes below:

Stitch for Change: Uniting for Fair Fashion

by Oxfam Canadain News

By Mwangala Matakala

On a bright Friday in Vancouver, Oxfam Canada joined forces with youth-led organizations, Threading Change, Remake, and Stand.Earth, to organize the Stitch for Change Challenge. Our mission? To highlight the urgent need for transparency in the fashion industry. 

As the sun rose in the crisp blue sky after a week of rain and clouds, our dedicated volunteers and campaigners gathered at the iconic Aritzia flagship store on Robson Street. Dressed in our unmistakable “Reveal the Chain” t-shirts, we carried sewing kits, brochures, and an unwavering determination for economic fairness.

We kicked off the day with a clear sense of purpose. Stitching is, after all, an act of creation and connection, and we were here to connect the stories of the women who make clothes for top Canadian brands like Aritzia, Herschel, Joe Fresh, Lululemon, and Roots with the people who wear them. 

Watch a video of our Stich for Change event in Vancouver on September 29, 2023

Secrecy in Numbers 

The garment industry is a lot more opaque than any of these brands let on, with major fashion brands outsourcing their production and often not disclosing their supply chain information. This lack of transparency restricts consumers’ knowledge about where and how garments are made and the wages paid to workers. 

Aritzia maintains an opaque sourcing system with no public information on who their suppliers are. Why is Aritzia keeping its supply chain and factory list such a big secret?

Nirvana Mujtaba, Women’s rights policy specialist, Oxfam Canada

The answer is in the numbers. In Asia, the women who make our clothes earn as little as $4-11 per day. The top executives of Canadian fashion brands? Over $27,000 per day. It takes a Cambodian garment worker over 100 years to earn what Aritzia’s CEO, Jennifer Wong, makes in just one month!

And so, the message we’re sending out with Stitch for Change is clear: it’s high time for transparency and fair wages.

The What She Makes Stitch for Change Challenge in Vancouver
Stitch for Change Challenge in Vancouver

Final Stitches and Future Threads

As the sun went down, we completed our final stitches of the day, but the thread of change we’ve woven continues to grow. The Stitch for Change Challenge in Vancouver vividly illustrated the power of unified voices.

Mwangala Matakala, Oxfam Canada campaigner for What She Makes
Mwangala Matakala, Oxfam Canada campaigner for What She Makes

What began as an idea has transformed into a movement driven by individuals who care, demand transparency, and believe that every stitch in a piece of clothing should be a stitch in the fabric of a fair and just fashion industry.

The Stitch for Change Challenge was a snapshot capturing what it means to stand up for what’s right. But our journey continues. The online petition remains live until November 10, 2023, and our determination to Reveal The Chain remains unshaken.

Please sign it here, and don’t forget to share it with your networks!

A huge THANK YOU to everyone who joined us on this journey and those who continue to do so. I look forward to a future where every stitch represents progress, every signature represents hope, and every garment worker is afforded a life of dignity and fairness. Together, we stitch for change.

What She Makes Campaign Brief

by Oxfam Canadain News, Resources

The fashion industry is huge and glamourous, but it is built on the backs of millions of women who live in poverty despite working countless hours making the clothes we wear. Canadian clothing brands take part in the systemic exploitation of workers by allowing poverty wages to be paid in many of their supplier factories. Canadian brands have a responsibility to pay enough for workers to live on – a living wage.

The women who make our clothes are paid such paltry wages – as little as 60 cents per hour in countries like Bangladesh – that they live in dismal conditions, fall into spiraling debt, and cannot afford the healthcare and education they and their families need. They are paid less than half of what they need to live a decent life.

Access to dignified work is a human right and a fundamental pathway out of poverty. Canadian brands must commit to paying a living wage to the women who make our clothes.

Download our campaign brief to learn more.

Milestone Two: Being Transparent

by Oxfam Canadain News, Resources

Our What She Makes campaign calls on Canadian fashion brands to ensure the women who make our clothes are paid a living wage. This backgrounder describes why supply chain transparency is an important step in the runway to paying living wages and improving labour practices in the fashion industry.

The brand tracker includes four milestones:

  1. Making a commitment: As a first step, brands should make a public commitment to pay a living wage in their supply chain within four years and publish it on their website. 
  2. Being transparent: Brands should be transparent, disclose their full supply chain and publish the following information on their website: full name of factories and processing facilities, site addresses, parent companies, types of products made and number of workers. 
  3. Publishing plans: Brands should develop and publish a step-by-step strategy outlining how and when it will achieve its commitment to pay workers a living wage and meet all requirements with clear milestones and targets. 
  4. Paying a living wage: Within four years of making a commitment, brands should be paying a living wage in their supply chains. This requires collaboration, consultation, and public reporting on their progress. 

Companies will score green, amber, or red depending on the actions they have taken concerning each milestone. We assess brands’ scores by considering a set of indicators outlined under each milestone. A green score on the brand tracker shows that the brand has fulfilled all elements outlined within a milestone. Amber shows that the brand has taken some action and red illustrates that the company has not taken any action. 

Download the guide below to learn more about milestone two, being transparent.

Leader Or Laggard?

by Oxfam Canadain News, Uncategorized

By Lauren Ravon and Marty Warren

Adopting human rights and environmental due diligence legislation would help to advance Canada’s feminist foreign policy goals and gender equality measures in aid, trade, diplomacy, and defence.

Canada is facing a major test of its human rights and feminist credentials. Will the government put effective safeguards in place to ensure Canadian companies proactively respect human rights and the environment abroad?

Our friend and colleague Kalpona Akter, a lifelong labour activist in the Bangladesh garment sector, has told us, “If my mum had received a wage we could live on, I wouldn’t have had to toil in a factory from the age of 12.”

Akter’s story is not unique, and living-wage violations are not the only human rights violations to occur in the fashion world. When the women who make our clothes try to form a union or ask for a raise, their jobs are at risk. Nine out of 10 workers in Bangladesh don’t make enough money to live on or afford food for their families. The women who make our clothes make poverty wages while the profits of Canadian fashion brands soar.

It’s promising that Labour Minister Seamus O’Regan’s mandate letter commits to “introduce legislation to eradicate forced labour from Canadian supply chains and ensure that Canadian businesses operating abroad do not contribute to human rights abuses.” The minister has made supply chain legislation his priority and is currently studying existing private members’ bills tabled in Parliament.

The question is: what kind of legislation will stop the abuse? Learning from other jurisdictions provides some insights.

Robust and comprehensive legislation must include the full range of human rights and have clear consequences for bad behaviour. Effective due diligence is not achieved through voluntary measures, reporting-only laws, or box-ticking compliance exercises. Canadian companies operating or sourcing abroad must be legally obligated to identify, prevent, mitigate, and provide remedies for all human rights violations and environmental damage caused by their operations.

Bill C-262, the Corporate Responsibility to Respect Human Rights Act, currently before Parliament, meets global standards on mandatory human rights due diligence. It would ensure that Canadian companies across economic sectors proactively respect human rights and would help create a level playing field for business.

Another bill is Senate public bill S-211 on modern slavery reporting, which just passed second reading in the House with government support. Forced and child labour are deplorable and evidence has shown that progress on their elimination has stalled. This modern slavery reporting bill taps into the abhorrence Canadians have for such exploitation, but unfortunately does not create the legislative framework or tools to combat it.

Incredulously, S-211 requires companies to report on whether forced or child labour exist in their supply chains, but does not actually create a legal obligation on companies to stop the practice or to remedy the situation if found. S-211 is modelled on a similar law in the U.K. The experience of other jurisdictions shows that legislation centred on reporting has proven ineffective in addressing egregious labour abuses in global supply chains.

Some might suggest to “not let perfect be the enemy of good.” But is S-211 good? Modern slavery acts and their reporting-only requirements have not brought the change they promised to bring. Adopting S-211 would be like buying a train ticket to nowhere and expecting to arrive at your destination.

If the government is serious on stopping human rights abuses, a bill must include all human rights, robust accountability, and pathways to remedy. As Akter demonstrated in the introduction, her rights as a child were intimately connected to the labour rights of her mother. We will not protect children and eliminate forced labour by ignoring the indivisibility of human rights or adopting measures that do not enforce accountability.

A country’s foreign policy is not limited to the actions of state institutions, such as its embassies and armed forces, but also includes the international operations and business dealings of the private sector. Adopting human rights and environmental due diligence legislation would help to advance Canada’s feminist foreign policy goals and gender equality measures in aid, trade, diplomacy, and defence.

Canada’s mining sector is active in at least 100 countries and Canadian retailers import apparel from every continent, depending on a workforce largely dominated by women. Without oversight of the private sector, the Canadian government risks harming some of its bilateral relationships and setting back its feminist foreign policy objectives.

We are entering a critical moment for corporate accountability in Canada. After years of failed half measures, it is high time we deal meaningfully with the conduct of Canadian business abroad. Let this be Canada’s coming of age and let us learn from the European Union, France, Germany, and Norway with ambition, urgency, and pride.

Our organizations and global partners, representing millions of workers and feminists, believe Canada can and must do the right thing. We need mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence legislation in Canada. The time is now.

Human rights and accountability are non-negotiable.

This op-ed was originally published in The Hill Times on June 15, 2022.

Lauren Ravon is the executive director of Oxfam Canada. Marty Warren is the Canadian national director of the United Steelworkers.

Milestone One: Making a Commitment

by Oxfam Canadain Resources

Our What She Makes campaign calls on Canadian fashion brands to ensure the women who make our clothes are paid a living wage. This backgrounder describes why supply chain transparency is an important step in the runway to paying living wages and improving labour practices in the fashion industry.

The brand tracker includes four milestones:

  1. Making a commitment: As a first step, brands should make a public commitment to pay a living wage in their supply chain within four years and publish it on their website. 
  2. Being transparent: Brands should be transparent, disclose their full supply chain and publish the following information on their website: full name of factories and processing facilities, site addresses, parent companies, types of products made and number of workers. 
  3. Publishing plans: Brands should develop and publish a step-by-step strategy outlining how and when it will achieve its commitment to pay workers a living wage and meet all requirements with clear milestones and targets. 
  4. Paying a living wage: Within four years of making a commitment, brands should be paying a living wage in their supply chains. This requires collaboration, consultation, and public reporting on their progress. 

Companies will score green, amber, or red depending on the actions they have taken concerning each milestone. We assess brands’ scores by considering a set of indicators outlined under each milestone. A green score on the brand tracker shows that the brand has fulfilled all elements outlined within a milestone. Amber shows that the brand has taken some action and red illustrates that the company has not taken any action. 

Download the guide below to learn more about milestone one, making a commitment.

The What She Makes campaign calls on Canadian fashion brands to ensure the women who make our clothes are paid a living wage. This backgrounder provides additional information on the first milestone highlighted on our corporate brand tracker.

Stuff Companies Say

by Oxfam Canadain Uncategorized

When fashion companies tell you about where their clothes are made and what they pay garment workers … There’s something missing.

Stuff companies say…

We are already committed to paying a living wage.

AND HOW TO RESPOND…

That’s missing a lot. A credible commitment requires a timeline with milestones showing how and when a company will achieve living wages in its supply chain. It’s great to know a company cares about ethical sourcing, but promises are empty without real timelines and plans in place against which a company can be held accountable.

Stuff companies say…

We cannot commit to anything publicly. This needs to be quiet.

AND HOW TO RESPOND…

That’s missing a lot. A commitment towards ensuring payment of living wages in your supply chain can only be credible if it is public and time-bound. Consumers want to know which companies are making progress towards living wages for the women who make our clothes. And your suppliers are more likely to get on board with living wage plans if your company is publicly stating your commitment.

Stuff companies say…

We take social responsibility very seriously and are working on a roadmap to pay living wages.

AND HOW TO RESPOND…

That’s missing a lot. Why don’t you solidify that plan by making a clear, public commitment right now that outlines your time frame?

Stuff companies say…

There is no universally agreed methodology for calculating living wages, so we benchmark against the legal minimum wage. We are working with stakeholders to adopt a living wage benchmark.

AND HOW TO RESPOND…

That’s missing a lot. I know well-established living wage calculation methodologies are already in place – you can find them on the Global Living Wage Coalition and Asia Floor Wage Alliance websites. This is no excuse for continuing the practice of allowing poverty wages.

Stuff companies say…

We only work with suppliers that respect their workforce, which includes paying living wages.

AND HOW TO RESPOND…

That’s missing a lot. I know well-established living wage calculation methodologies are already in place – you can find them on the Global Living Wage Coalition and Asia Floor Wage Alliance websites. This is no excuse for continuing the practice of allowing poverty wages.

Stuff companies say…

We have not published the factory list but we have full traceability of those factories and work with them closely to improve working conditions

AND HOW TO RESPOND…

That’s missing a lot. It’s great that you know who your suppliers are, but you need to publish your factory list now. Many major brands around the globe have done this, including Lululemon — and you are lagging behind. Not publishing the factory list can put workers in danger and means you are not taking public responsibility for the conditions in the factories you use to make a profit. It’s high time to publish the list now to allow workers and others to alert you of any abuses in these factories.

Keep reading Stuff Companies Say … And How To Respond:

WHAT YOU CAN DO…

Join us and have your say by telling @Roots @Aritzia @Lululemon @Herschel and @JoeFresh to pay a living wage to the women that make our clothes. Sign the pledge and demand that Canadian brands make a credible, public, time-bound commitment to paying a living wage.

Together, we can hold Canadian brands accountable for #WhatSheMakes.

Statement Of Solidarity

by Oxfam Canadain News

Oxfam stands in solidarity with the Bangladesh Garment and Industrial Workers Federation (BGIWF), trade union leaders and all human rights defenders who stand up for workers’ rights and protect human rights.

Oxfam learned of the horrific news of the brutal murder of Shahidul Islam, a union leader who was beaten to death on June 25th for his labour rights activism in Gazipur, a major garment industry hub on the outskirts of Dhaka, Bangladesh. He was an organizer of the BGIWF for 25 years advocating for workers’ rights as a trade union organizer, and was attacked and killed for standing up for basic human rights. We mourn not only the loss of an individual but also the loss of a powerful voice that championed the rights and well-being of workers, including the right to a living wage. We extend our sincere condolences to the grieving family, friends, colleagues and allies mourning his loss.

Kalpona Akter, the president of BGIWF, said: “Shahidul mobilised thousands of workers to join unions, empowering them to become solid factory-level trade union leaders. Throughout his life, he assisted thousands of workers in receiving arrears and severance pay wrongfully denied by their employers. With workers’ needs always in mind, Shahidul and three other union leaders met on the evening of his death to discuss a peaceful resolution to a wage dispute and the Eid-ul-Azha festival bonus. He met his fate due to the industry’s ill practice to promote yellow unionism for years and the neglect of workers’ voices. This needs to stop. Let our workers be free to organize and join unions. Shahid’s contributions to the labour movement were remarkable and will be sorely missed.”

Ahmed Sharif, a union organizer who was wounded in the attack, told the Guardian “As soon as we came out of the gate, a group of assailants grabbed Islam and separated him from us. They started cursing and randomly beating us, particularly Islam, some of them were kicking him mercilessly.”

As an organization dedicated to the fight to end poverty and injustice, we are deeply concerned by the murder of Shahidul Islam. This tragic incident highlights the vulnerability of union leaders and activists fighting for workers’ rights. Oxfam joins BGIWF in demanding a thorough investigation and ensure justice is served for the death of Islam. We further call on all brands and stakeholders to conduct ethical purchasing practices upholding human rights within their supply chain and paying a living wage. We call on the government of Bangladesh to step up their protection of trade unionists who are exercising their fundamental human rights to freedom of association and collective bargaining.

Oxfam stands in solidarity with BGIWF, raising a resounding call for justice in the case of Shahidul Islam and demanding the unwavering safety of workers, union members and human rights defenders. We stand united in their relentless struggle to defend workers’ rights at Prince Jacquard Sweaters Ltd factory and in workplaces across Bangladesh. Together we demand accountability and an end to the systemic violations that perpetuate injustice.

#Justice4Shahidul

Background

Shahidul and his colleagues were attacked after leaving the meeting with the management of a factory named Price Jacquard Sweaters Ltd to help the workers collect their due bonuses and wages. The factory management refused to comply despite being directed by the Deputy Commissioner’s (DC) office of Gazipur District to pay the workers’ salaries.

This is not the first time BGIWF has been the victim of such a fatal attack. Eleven years ago, in April 2012, another worker leader, Aminul Islam was tortured and murdered. Aminul was also an organizer with BGIWF, a vital contributor to the nation’s striving movement to advance workers’ rights. The murders of human rights defenders exemplify the extreme measures employed to suppress freedom of association in Bangladesh.

The tragic death of Shahidul, along with countless incidents of other workers being silenced by violence and fear, highlight the urgent need for change. Brands are responsible for ethical business practices and need to ensure that their purchasing practices are not leading to exploitation and deprivation of human rights. Brands must guarantee the right to a living wage and just, safe and healthy working conditions for garment workers.

Despite legal provisions, union leaders and activists face many challenges and restrictions such as anti-union discrimination, harassment, and retaliation against union leaders and members. Additionally, labour activists have raised concerns about the composition and independence of worker participation committees in factories. Labour activists argue that these ‘yellow unions’ are established by factory owners to exert control on workers raising concerns of workers’ rights to collective bargaining and discriminatory power dynamics.

Oxfam Canada, Oxfam Australia and Oxfam Aotearoa’s What She Makes campaign aims to transform the fashion industry into a more just and equitable space by holding brands accountable for their purchasing practices and advocating for a living wage. A living wage is the minimum amount that a worker should earn in a 48-hour work week and adequately covers workers’ and their family’s basic needs, including food, water, housing, energy, healthcare, clothing, childcare, education, transportation and savings for unexpected events. We stand united with the women who make our clothes, advocating for their right to living wages, freedom of association and labour rights.

2022 Naughty or Nice

by Oxfam Canadain Resources, Uncategorized

In the midst of today’s cost of living crisis, every worker deserves to be paid a living wage. This holiday season, we want to know which Canadian fashion brands are acting “Naughty” or “Nice” on the issue of living wages for the women who make our clothes.

We’re demanding that Canadian fashion brands stand with the women who make our clothes and improve the working conditions of the millions of garment workers who toil in factories to meet their clothing orders.

If fashion brands paid living wages, the women who make our clothes, and their families, would no longer be struggling in poverty. However, this year, none of the brands is fully on its way to ensuring living wages in supplier factories.

Which brands have made a real commitment to a living wage, and who is lagging behind? Our first annual Naughty or Nice List reveals how Joe Fresh, Lululemon, Aritzia, Herschel Supply Co. and Roots stack up.