Those With Justice: A Disney Factory In China (+ Looking For Mickey Mouse’s Conscience – A Survey Of The Working Conditions Of Disney’s Supplier Factories in China)

[The] workers – their faces hidden – … say they have been injured by unsafe equipment and show their bandaged fingers and cut hands (Source: Anon 2005a, np link).

As they talk, their hands move. There are photos of burned and crushed hands. Some have amputated fingers. There is footage of a glue press that workers say is responsible for these injuries. In one scene, a woman handling the Mickey Mouse: Haunted Halloween book explains: ‘We need to smooth down the book corners. They [the factory supervisors] would tell us that foreigners are superior to us… ‘Foreign kids’ skin is specially sensitive,’ they would say. You need to be responsible to them. But they never treat us like that.’ In another scene, a female worker, who like many others moved to the city from her rural home, is asked if she gets homesick. She talks about her two children. ‘My daughter is still young. When I came to work, she was only a year and a half’. She is now 4 years old. She explains ‘I went back once. I looked familiar to her. I asked her, “Can you recognise me?” After staring at me for a while, she said, ‘Are you my aunt?’’ (Source: Cook & Woodyer 2012, p.230).

One worker describes an injury suffered to his hand. The injury was a result of workers being required to work book binding machinery without the safety guards in place, as they slow the job down (Source: Finn 2007, p.12 link).

[Video transcript] Women in khaki pants & light blue top uses a Disney book (Mickey and Friends, Haunted Halloween) to illustrate how injuries can happen in her job. ‘While producing a book like this, many chances of injury can happen. When making this cover, we use a machine to press this edge. But there is no safety device – It depends on your carefulness. Because the book is very small, when pressing it, our hand gets very close to where the machine (It is still board) presses. When we put it in, if we are not careful, our fingers will be pressed together with this book. When applying the glue to the book … during this process, including making the cover … a constantly running adhesive machine is used. We need to feed it manually. Insert like this and then pull it out while it is still running. If we are not careful, our hand could be rolled in with the material’ (Source: sweatinfo 2007, np link).

In the Hung Hing printing factory, supervisors curse at the workers, shouting that ‘they are stupid like pigs’ and ‘their brains are full of water.’ Managers also force the workers to memorize and repeat prepared answers to any questions the auditors are likely to ask, threatening them if they refuse to comply (Source: Chan 2006a, p.3).

Demanding justice and dignity, the workers themselves drafted a complaint letter and petitioned the management. There was, nevertheless, no answer (Source; SACOM 2007a, p.1).

In July and early August 2005, a research group of students and teachers conducted interviews with 120 migrant workers of different departments from the 4 factories. Our findings of the 4 researched factories clearly illustrate that and how labor rights are violated (Source: Leung 2006, p.3).

The major findings of SACOM’s 32-page research report, ‘Looking for Mickey Mouse’s Conscience‘ … were first highlighted in joint press conferences in Hong Kong and New York City (together with the National Labor Committee) … :

Nontransparent and Problematic Wage Calculations: The management often uses the tactic promising a wage increase and then breaking that promise, leaving most workers confused about the method of calculating their wages. At other times, they use a combination of time and piece rate of payments, which is also a confusing and arbitrary system. Worse still, some workers’ wage slips are withheld by the company, leaving workers without the proper evidence to militate against the abuse.

High Occurrence of Occupational Injuries and Accidents: Workplace accidents (in the electrical department and the cutting machines department) resulting in injuries in which workers with crushed fingers and maimed limbs are frequent. There are workers who report that serious work injuries are almost a daily occurrence (at Hung Hing printing factory – one of the 30 factories to have experienced the greatest number of work related accidents in 2004 in the industrial district in Shenzhen). The accidents are associated with unsafe and dangerous machinery, not the workers’ carelessness. There are two noteworthy points: first, no safety and health training is provided for the workers. Second, most of the injured workers are forced to pay for their hospital expenses themselves. The 1998 regulations governing occupational injuries and insurance for Guangdong province, however, stipulate that the management have to pay for the medical expenses of workers, including basic food and lodging expenses at the hospital.

Violations of Women Workers’ Rights: Regarding maternity leave, the management nominally claims that workers have the right to 90 paid days off. However, according to workers, the reality is that women workers do not have days off after becoming pregnant. Most pregnant workers are not able to endure the long hours of overtime and are forced to resign from work and return home.

Wages well below the Local Legal Minimum: Under the extreme exploitation of the factories’ system of fines and illegally low overtime wages, the workers only earn from 400 to 700 yuan (approximately 50 to 87.5 USD) in monthly wages. Workers are often not compensated for their overtime hours. For example, workers (at Hung Hing in Shenzhen) are pressured to arrive at the factory a half hour early for work and leave a half hour late, but this extra hour of work is without pay. While the legal hourly wage should be 3.43 yuan in Dongguan, the workers (at Nord Race) received only 2.69 yuan, regardless of whether they worked overtime (in accordance with the labor law, workers should be paid 1.5 times the normal wages on weekdays, 2 times on weekends, and 3 times on statutory holidays). Long Working Hours: Workers are forced to work 12 to 16 hours a day, which far exceeds the 8-hour normal level as stipulated in labor laws. The production goals or quotas are excessively high. In peak seasons, workers were forced to work all night, working continuously for 30 hours. There is oftentimes no day off for an entire week, which is a violation of law. In this way a work month lasts between 350 to 390 hours, even if the limit of overtime work should be no more than 36 hours a month.

Terrible Work Environment on the Shop Floor: The manufacturing facilities have no fans, even though they become oppressively hot in the summer. As a result, workers have been known to faint from the unbearable stifling heat of the workshops. In the gluing department, the smell of the chemicals, such as thinner, is awful. The factory fails to implement even the most basic protective measures such as providing workers with masks. Poor Living Environment: The management provides collective dormitories for workers, with 8 to 12 people to a small room with double level bunk beds. A shared toilet also functions as a shower stall. Some dormitories lack hot water and showers, and instead workers carry buckets of water to bathe with.

Horrible Food: Workers report that even the color of the food attests to its low quality. Food at the factory canteen (at Hung Hing in Shenzhen) nevertheless costs workers 150 yuan a month. If a worker chooses not to eat at the canteen, this money is not returned to the worker.

False Trails of Factory Inspection: The management will instruct workers about the factory inspection ahead of time and reward workers who have kept up a good appearance after the inspectors have left. Those who gave a less than ideal appearance are fined. In addition, the management prepares, in advance, false documents such as wage slips and labor contracts that are in accordance with the law in order to fool inspectors from the labor bureau and the clients. For example, workers are asked to sign contracts which in fact have no meaning within the factory. Managers (at Lam Sun in Dongguan) have, on occasion, shut the majority of the workers in the dormitories during the inspections in order to prevent workers from revealing anything that could negatively affect the appearance of the factory.

Restrictions of Resignation: Although the management (at Lam Sun in Dongguan) does not take workers’ identity papers from them, they withhold 45 days of wages (about 500 yuan) from workers as a security deposit. Workers who want to resign within the period of the contract have to forfeit their security deposit unless some stringent conditions set by the management are met (Source: Chan 2006b, p.2-3).

[It] concludes that Disney’s products such as children’s books and toys are made with the blood, sweat, and tears of young Chinese workers. Disney has a wide audience and should show its leadership in promoting global sustainability. But tragically it has failed to do so (Source: SACOM 2007a, p.2-3).

SACOM sincerely wishes the [Disney] CEO and the person-in-charge of the labor standards program to take the lead in demonstrating the company’s commitment to a sound corporate social responsibility system. We have sent two formal letters and numerous emails to them, in the hope of discussing with them the improvement of labor conditions in Disney supplier factories in China and elsewhere, but there is no responsible reply at all.

• A letter to Mr. Michael Eisner, CEO, The Walt Disney Company (24 Aug 2005)
• A letter to Mr. Robert Iger, CEO, The Walt Disney Company (8 Dec 2006)
• Emails to Mark Spears (Director, International Labour Standards) at mark.spears@disney.com
• Emails to Jim Leung (Regional Director, International Labour Standards, Asia Pacific) at jim.leung@disney.com
• Emails to Gina Lee (Compliance Manager, International Labour Standards, Asia Pacific) at gina.lee@disney.com
• Emails to Alannah Goss (Regional Executive Director, Corporate communications, Asia Pacific) at alannah.goss@disney.com (Source: SACOM 2007a, p.3-4).

To many children, Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck and Goofy are lovable characters. But, to a group of 20 university students, they are symbols of corporate greed and labour exploitation. Outraged by labour abuse on the mainland by big corporations, the students set up Students and Scholars Against Corporate Misbehaviour (SACOM) in 2005. The establishment of the organisation stood in stark contrast to all the fanfare surrounding the opening of Hong Kong Disneyland. ‘When Disneyland opened in 2005, everyone talked about how the theme park would create jobs and boost tourist numbers,’ said Vivien Yau Tze-wei, project co-ordinator of SACOM. But the group saw Disneyland in a different light, so they staged a demonstration in front of the park’s gate on opening day. Over the past two years, the students have paid regular visits to the mainland to assess labourers’ working conditions. ‘We waited outside factories that make Disney products and asked the workers how they were treated,’ said Renfred Yu Yiu-tung, a Year Two student from Hong Kong Polytechnic University. The workers’ stories appalled the young campaigners. ‘Many of them are underpaid and work overtime. Some young women had their fingers amputated because of industrial accidents. Unaware of their rights, they didn’t seek compensation,’ said the 20-year-old university student (Source: Anon 2007c, p.1).

[On 30 August, s]tudent activists staged a protest outside Disney’s soon-to-open park in Hong Kong … against what they described as abuse of Chinese workers at factories that supply the resort’s merchandise. Among the protesters, three people dressed as Chinese workers stood at the park gates with their eyes symbolically covered by the hands of cartoon character Mickey Mouse in effigy. They also held a banner that read: ‘Disney exploits Chinese workers; empty talks on community care.’ The protest by some 15 students coincided with the start of the theme park’s ‘Community Caring Days,’ where 20,000 underprivileged children and their carers were given free visits ahead of the 3 billion US dollar park’s opening on September 12. ‘They don’t care about the rights of the workers and their safety, why would they care about the disadvantaged in the community? What they do is fake and purely a PR stunt,’ said Argo Yeung, a spokesman for protest organiser Students and Scholars Against Corporate Misbehaviour (SACOM). A SACOM study published two weeks ago painted a picture of worker exploitation by Disney’s mainland suppliers. … ‘These people work long hours and are underpaid. To increase production, these factories neglect the safety of their staff,’ Yeung told [our reporter]. ‘We demand Disney improves working conditions and allows non-governmental groups to provide proper training to the employees and teach them safety procedures,’ Yeung said. He also urged Disney to demand its suppliers allow their workers to set up monitoring committees to protect their legal rights, health, safety and welfare. Disney spokesmen gave no comment on the protest but have agreed to look into the findings of the SACOM study (Source: Anon 2005g, np).

(Source SACOM Hong Kong 2013, np link).

[On 11 September, a]round 50 to 60 protestors scuffled with police in front of the main gate as Disney management tried to force them back with restraining barriers while VIP guests arrived for a party on the eve of the park’s official opening. No arrests were made and the demonstrators ended by staging a sit-down protest. They also carried a banner which read ‘Let’s get Mickey’s conscience back’ in reference to Disney’s popular cartoon character. Protest organiser Students and Scholars Against Corporate Misbehaviour (SACOM) said they were demonstrating against the mistreatment of workers in Chinese factories which supply merchandise to Disney. ‘Disney is a symbol of childhood fun and it has a responsibility to do business in a way that doesn’t place workers in dangerous conditions,’ a SACOM spokesman said. A SACOM study published last month painted a picture of worker exploitation by Disney’s mainland suppliers. It found workers at Chinese factories that make souvenirs and toys for the theme park were forced to work through the night during peak seasons, sometimes for 30 hours at a time, but were paid as little as 400 yuan (47 US dollars) a month with next to no overtime wages. It also said accidents that maimed workers were common (Source: Anon 2005i, np).

On the face of it, [the protestors are] just the sort who would rush to the new Disneyland or apply for jobs there. They’re young; they grew up with the characters; they’ve got money to burn. Instead, they’re urging Hong Kong to rethink its embrace of all things Disney. The opening of the theme park has had a surprise side effect: it has helped revive activism in a generation of students largely viewed as politically apathetic. Which is why, last Sunday, a group of university students were out in bustling Mongkok, canvassing the crowds on the labour practices and adverse cultural impact of the US entertainment giant. Action in the so-called Disney Hunter Festival centred on Sai Yeung Choi Street, where campaign banners drew the attention of middle-aged pedestrians as well as hip teenage shoppers. Dressed as Disney cast members and factory workers, the students performed songs and skits mocking the manufactured happiness of the Magic Kingdom. The campaign unites more than 60 students from all seven Hong Kong universities under two groups: the more established Disney Hunter, and the recently formed Students and Scholars Against Corporate Misbehaviour (Sacom). … Such activism has shocked the university community. In recent years, student unions have struggled to fill various committees and are a far cry from the dynamic forces they were in previous generations (Source: Anon 2005h, np).

The Disney campaign has been a bigger revelation for Sophia So than most activists. The Sacom member is a long-time Disney fan and used to spend more than $1,000 a year on various Disney toys and stationery. Friends would often give her Disney merchandise as gifts. But visits to Guangdong sweatshops have altered her perception of Mickey and Minnie. She claims that workers were often forced to work 15- to 16-hour shifts, and that they rarely had days off. ‘The workers had nowhere to complain to,’ she says. ‘The meals they were given were really bad, sometimes it was only cucumber.’ A Disney spokeswoman said: ‘We were not aware of the violations that have been mentioned in the factories highlighted and will investigate this claim diligently.’ However, the company is now threatening the pressure group [Disney Hunter] with legal action over its logo – a black silhouette of Mickey Mouse with his ears on fire. The mouse head is in the centre of crosshairs (Source: Anon 2005h, np).

(Source SACOM Hong Kong 2013, np link).

Now when So sees Disney merchandise, it’s the images of workers that come to mind. ‘I might be able to see the laughing faces of toys, but there are tears and blood behind them,’ she says. Her group recently released a report claiming that some sweatshops making Disney merchandise fail to pay a living wage, and has since circulated the findings around the world with the help of the US-based National Labour Committee. Inspired by a campaign against Nike’s use of sweatshop labour, the students are now pressuring Disney to be more transparent. They want the company to publish a list of its manufacturers so that the public can monitor those factories (Source: Anon 2005h, np).

Polytechnic University graduate Argo Yeung Man-yue abandoned a career in engineering to join Sacom full-time. ‘I lost interest in my studies and the idea of climbing up the middle-class ladder,’ he says. ‘There are more worthwhile pursuits.’ The issues surrounding Disney, especially underpaid workers, interested him because it affected all of China, not just Hong Kong. Yeung says he believes university students can muster substantial clout if they put their minds to it. He cites, as an example, how students abroad once refused to accept Nike sponsorship unless the company released the list of factories manufacturing its shoes and apparel. His group plans to launch a consumer campaign later in the year. ‘We want to make people think about how goods are produced before they buy them,’ he says (Source: Anon 2005h, np).

On 18 August 2005, SACOM organized a press conference and released a report named ‘Looking for Mickey Mouse’s Conscience … ‘ [in Hong Kong] … [But w]ould the American people ever associate this book with crushed fingers?’ asked Charles Kernaghan, the executive director of the National Labor Committee (Source: Choi 2007, p. 334-5 link).

‘There’s blood on this book,’ Kernaghan said as he held up a copy of a child’s book made in China and published by Disney (Source: Anon 2005a, np link).

He [said this] in New York on 19 August 2005, just twelve hours after Hong Kong SACOM’s anti-Disney-sweatshop press conference. Collaborating with SACOM, the US group held a protest in front of a Disney store on Fifth Avenue in Manhattan, with three activists dressing as Mickey Mouse, Minnie Mouse, and Winnie the Pooh (Source: Choi 2007, p. 334-5 link).

[Another US labour rights NGO] Sweatshop Watch learned of these working conditions first hand in a visit to one of Disney’s supplier factories in China. After meeting and talking with workers, Sweatshop Watch produced a documentary called ‘Those With Justice’ … (Source: Anon 2005c, p.2-3).

… SACOM made an 11-minute documentary film, Those with Justice: A Disney Factory in China (Source: Chan 2006b, p.2-3).

The video was used by Students & Scholars Against Corporate Misbehavior (SACOM) and National Labor Committee to demand that Disney disclose the names and locations of its supplier factories and ensure decent working conditions in their factories (Source: Anon 2005c, p.2-3).

[O]n Wednesday, May 9, at 7 p.m. … [s]tudents in [The University of California, Santa Cruz]’s master’s program in social documentation will present ‘Media for Social Justice: Visual & Audio Letters of Support’ in Communications Building Studio C on the UCSC campus. Students will present their work and talk about their experiences as activists who use media to create social change. Highlights will include: Those with Justice by Karin Mak (class of ’08), a film that focuses on the working conditions in a Chinese factory that prints books for Disney (Source: Anon 2007b, np).

I was in Hong Kong at the time and meeting up with workers’ rights organizations and had wanted to put my video skills to use.  It so happened the SACOM was doing the study of the factories, so we went in to shoot.  We shot the video that way out of necessity – it was a very much on-the-fly production. We borrowed cameras and did the interviews with the hope of protecting workers’ identities  (Source: Mak 2010, pers comm).

The video was used in a campaign led by Students & Scholars Against Corporate Misbehavior (SACOM) … [to] garner… international press (Source: sweatinfo 2007, np link).

Owing in large part to the SACOM video documentary Those with Justice, which brought mainland workers’ voices to the front stage of the campaign, the story became globalized and made headlines in The International Herald Tribune, in The New York Times, on Fox News, on BBC News, in The Washington Post, in Forbes Magazine, in The Guardian, and on CNN, among others (Source: Choi 2007, p.335 link).

These practices amount to slavery (Source: Cromie in Chan & Yau 2008, p.29)!

I am appalled at Disney’s failure to enforce its own standards for workers making its products (Source: Woods in Chan & Yau 2008, p.29).

Disney’s long history of worker abuse in the manufacture of various goods, like children’s sleepware produced in Haiti, casts shame on them and shows the corporation’s real agenda to be pure, bottom line, cutthroat capitalism (Source: Giorgio in Chan & Yau 2008, p.29).

If the kids at Disneyland only knew (Source: Gibson in Chan & Yau 2008, p.29).

I cannot believe that a company that I adored so much as a child would treat human beings in such an inhumane way. It is absolutely frustrating and unacceptable (Source: Roy in Chan & Yau 2008, p.29)!

I loved Disney as a girl, and I find it awful that the company I put so much love into is doing this to these people. Please stop, otherwise you’ll lose millions of children’s support (Source: Jessica in Chan & Yau 2008, p.29).

What a miserable face shows WALT DISNEY COMPANY to the children of the world (Source: Schubert in Chan & Yau 2008, p.29)!

I have a 7 years old son and I want fair toys for him (Source: Calderon in Chan & Yau 2008, p.29).

I keep having to explain to my children why I won’t buy Disney products (Source: Fasching-Gray in Chan & Yau 2008, p.29).

Remember the workers (Source: McDonagh in Chan & Yau 2008, p.29).

Honour Chinese labour laws (Source: Walker in Chan & Yau 2008, p.29)!

As a teacher, mother, and community volunteer, I demand to know what Disney is doing…and how you intend to retroactively compensate your Chinese workers. Until then, our family will not purchase, use, or accept Disney toys, or attend Disney theme parks (Source: Matsubuchi in Chan & Yau 2008, p.29).

Please stop your corporate greed and start abiding by your labor Code of Conduct, Walt Disney (Source: Lee in Chan & Yau 2008, p.29)!

Take Action! Put your corporate dollars to work and give workers safe, humane working conditions (Source: Cave in Chan & Yau 2008, p.30)!

Grow up and pay properly – it’s not like you aren’t making HUGE profits (Source: NIelsen in Chan & Yau 2008, p.30).

Disney should pay their employees fairly to make their products in China. It is very sad that companies like Disney that are supposed to create joy and happiness for children and families, end up creating misery for the poor!’ (Source: Florizone in Chan & Yau 2008, p.30).

Please respect the rights and well-being of your Chinese workforce (Source: Townsend in Chan & Yau 2008, p.30).

Please take responsibility for the well-being of the people who’s labour your corporation depends on (Source: Ball in Chan & Yau 2008, p.30)!

Please do better with regard to workers’ rights (Source: Scott in Chan & Yau 2008, p.30)

Disney must do better: Chinese workers are not cartoons, they are people and must be respected by their employers. People matter more than profits (Source: Stroud in Chan & Yau 2008, p.20)!

Yes we’re only hearing the negative side of the story – no mention of the prosperity brought to the community by foreign money – but those companies ought to care more for their workers. … / I’ve been to electronics manufacturing and metal stamping factories in Shenzhen before and most of the video shot looks pretty typical. I visit these factories as a business customer, so I don’t hear much about saftey problems, but I’m sure it happens. … / I worked in a factory once. Once. It doesn’t sound much different. They just sound like a bunch of whiners. / Hm, that doesn’t look that bad. I really thought it was worse than that. /… It doesn’t sound any more dangerous or unreasonable then a local manufacturing company I once worked briefly for called Inventronics. They make all sorts of metal enclosures to house fibre optics and what not. Any one of the machines used could easily chop your hand clean off (or pulverize as the case may be), although they do have ‘safety’ mechanisms installed. The shift work is atrocious. You get the choice of a 4:00 PM to 4:00 AM shift, or the ever so fun 4:00 AM to 4:00 PM shift. Worst job ever! I quit after two shifts. The point is, factory work is inherently dangerous no matter what part of the world you are from. Shift work in factories is also the norm. Suck it up or find a new job (Source: comments on video at digg.com {link expired}).

Why aren’t those ‘family values’ peeps outraged?? It seems to me that Wal-Vart attracts those who are willfully ignorant … like [President] bush supporters. Why aren’t they upset at the exploitation of these children? Oh yeah because they haven’t any real morals and they’re usually just a bunch of douchebags. (sorry but htis stuff really ticks me off) (Source: Janet 2005, np link)?!

Maybe we should check out SACOM.  I love the dignified name: Students and Scholars Against Corporate Misbehavior. Some of us are students, and we’re ALL scholars, right (Source: Pajevic 2005b, np link)?!

Sacom … said it isn’t satisfied with Disney’s response. ‘There are problems in Disney’s monitoring approach and their buying practices,’ because factories can lie or find ways around Disney labor standards, said Sacom’s chief coordinator, Billy Hung. The Hong Kong group said it still wants Disney to make public the names and addresses of all its contract manufacturers and to announce its findings on labor abuses and industrial accidents. The operator of one of the factories named in Sacom’s report, Hong Kong-based Nord Race Paper Intl., denied some of the accusations, saying in a statement that it fully complies with Chinese labor laws. The report claims a Nord Race factory in the city of Dongguan, which makes Disney stationery, paid workers 33 [?] an hour, when Dongguan’s minimum wage is 42 [?]. The report also claims Nord Race coaches workers before audits and issues fake time slips to conceal illegal working hours. Nord Race responded that its workers are poorly educated and the company explains to them their rights, such as maternity leave (Source: Anon 2005f, np).

[SACOM letter to Disney’s CEO] SACOM once again calls for effective in-plant training and democratic representation of workers in Walt Disney’s suppliers in China and in other countries. We strongly demand that Walt Disney Company and its suppliers join hands, under the scrutiny of a trustworthy non-profit third party, to fulfill their corporate social responsibilities. We demand that Walt Disney Company publish the names and addresses of its suppliers to the public. Moreover, its factory representatives need to: consult SACOM and concerned labor groups to provide workers with training programs; work out a detailed timetable for participatory training; support democratic elections run by workers for the establishment of Workers’ Committees; collaborate with workers in factory monitoring for the long term. SACOM hopes that the conscience of Walt Disney Company will follow the growth of its profits as generated from the opening of Hong Kong Disneyland (its fifth Disney park) and its global sales of Disney products (films, TV programs, toys, gifts, jewels, clothing, children’s books, stationary, etc). We, together with the factory workers in China and other countries, will never give up fighting for labor and human rights. We now inform you that SACOM published its second investigative report on Chinese labor conditions of Disney’s 3 suppliers – A Second Attempt at Looking for Mickey Mouse’s Conscience: A Survey of the Working Conditions of Disney’s Supplier Factories in China – on December 8, 2006 in Hong Kong (attached please find the 31-page full report for your reference). … We sincerely wish that you, Robert Iger, the CEO of the Walt Disney Company, will take the lead in demonstrating your company’s commitment to a transparent and accountable corporate social responsibility system. We look forward to discussing with you the improvement of labor conditions in Disney supplier factories in China and elsewhere on or before December 22, 2006 (Source: Chan 2006, p.4-5).

Since the release of the research report [Looking for Mickey Mouse’s Conscience] and documentary film [Those With Justice] … , SACOM with Hong Kong-based labor coalitions have participated in good faith in 4 rounds of negotiations with Jim Leung, Walt Disney Company Regional Director of International Labour Standards (on September 3, 2005; November 17, 2005; December 12, 2005; and January 16, 2006). At the end of January 2006, SACOM successfully nominated the Walt Disney Company for the Public Eye Award 2006 in the category ‘social rights’ (human and labor rights), and the organizing committee of the Switzerland-based Berne Declaration also condemned the company for its irresponsible corporate behavior. Disappointedly, there have yet to be any significant improvements (Source: Chan 2006, p.4).

While the corporate world elite held their traditional annual meeting in this Swiss alpine resort, non-governmental organizations again did their best to spoil the party, pointing a symbolic finger at corporate environmental and social irresponsibility. The targets this time were Chevron, Walt Disney and Citigroup. Pro Natura, the Swiss branch of Friends of the Earth, and The Berne Declaration, a non-governmental organization that promotes justice and equality in North-South relations, awarded their sarcastic prizes known as the Public Eye awards on Tuesday. Their announcement took place on the opening day of the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, an annual meeting that brings together CEOs of transnational corporations, political leaders and prominent neoliberal economists. Sonja Ribi of Pro Natura told IPS that Public Eye award recipients are nominated by civil society organizations all over the world. Held at the same time as the WEF, the ceremony has become a tradition, and represents ‘the only true alternative’ to the Davos meeting, she said. The organizers of The Public Eye on Davos offer a public platform at which ‘the dark side of a uniquely profit oriented globalization is illuminated,’ Ribi explained. The prizes for corporate irresponsibility were awarded this year to the oil giant Chevron Corp., in environmental affairs, for polluting forests in Ecuador; to Walt Disney Co., in the social domain, for violating workers’ and human rights in China; and to Citigroup Inc., for enabling tax evasion and money laundering by corporations, individuals and dictators. … A study titled ‘Looking for Mickey Mouse’s Conscience: A Survey of the Working Conditions in Disney’s Supplier Factories in China,’ led to the U.S. Walt Disney Co. receiving its ‘award’ for social irresponsibility. The study was carried out by an NGO in Hong Kong, Students and Scholars against Corporate Misbehavior (SACOM), which is concerned with the working conditions of the poor (Source: Capdevilla 2006, np).

[At the ceremony] ‘The collusion between the corrupted state and transnational capital has brought miserable conditions to workers in China and other developing countries,’ said SACOM representative Parry Leung. ‘Pro-active measures must be taken to rectify the current situation at the workplace level. Our understanding is that the Chinese workers are not powerless or submissive. They are capable of resisting global capitalism’ … (Source: Capdevilla 2006, np).

… Let‘s focus on one of the four targeted factories, Hung Hing Printing Company for more in-depth sharing. It is a publicly listed company from Hong Kong. It is one of the top 3 printing companies in China, founded in 1994, employing 12,000 Chinese workers. Hung Hing’s major clients include Wal-Mart, Disney, K-Mart, Mattel, and McDonald’s. Hung Hing specializes in making children’s books for Disney, paper boxes for Wal-Mart, and stationary products,. May I show you [Those with justice] an 8-minute documentary on Hung Hing factory. It tells you the conditions for the workers there in their own words (Source: Leung 2006, p.2-3).

When SACOM published the results of their two-year research project last year, it caused a stir. ‘…Even foreign news media, including the BBC and CNN, reported our findings,’ said [SACOM project coordinator] Ms Yau. But the group’s aim of helping workers backfired this year. Before the Lunar New Year holiday, news about the closure of a Shenzhen factory was reported by Hong Kong media. Eighty per cent of the factory’s orders came from Disney. When the corporation suddenly withdrew its orders, the factory was forced to close. This resulted in 800 workers losing their jobs right before the festive season (Source: Anon 2007c, p.1).

Huang Xing used to receive up to 80% of its orders from Disney. After the publication of SACOM report in September 2006, Huang Xing workers confided to SACOM they experienced a dramatic decrease in Disney orders. As a result of the reduction of orders, workers’ wages dropped dramatically. Some workers have had no alternative but to quit without the damages the law requires employers to pay workers in such a situation. SACOM condemned Disney [who] withdrew orders from Huang Xing as a direct result of pressure on Disney to enforce workers’ rights at Huang Xing. More than 800 workers lost their jobs on 31 January 2007, just before the Chinese New Year, when Huang Xing closed down. Despite the protest of SACOM at the Asia headquarters of Walt Disney Co. on 6 February 2007, Disney gave no promise to compensate the affected workers (Source: Chan 2007, p.4).

Consumers in mainland China, Hong Kong, and other countries are very concerned about the affected 800 Chinese factory workers, who were laid off suddenly in the evening on January 31, 2007 (last Wednesday). The Walt Disney Company Limited turned a blind eye to workers’ rights violations in their supply chain in southern China, despite its claimed commitment to high international labor standards (Source: SACOM 2007b, np).

The young [SACOM] campaigners were denounced as busybodies who messed up the lives of mainland workers. A commentator in a Hong Kong daily went so far as to criticise the ‘well-fed university students’ for ‘depriving the workers of their right to work and survive’. Undaunted by the criticisms, the students said: ‘It was Disneyland, not us, who left them out of work. Disney said they had withdrawn their orders because of labour abuse by the factory owners. But the factory owners told mainland media a different story. They said the small budget and tight schedules laid down by Disney forced them to make their staff work long hours for very low pay’ (Source: Anon 2007c, p.1).

To SACOM, this was a setback because SACOM does not want Disney to stop its business with these problematic suppliers: if the business were to cease, so too would the livelihood of the suppliers’ most vulnerable workers. After several meetings with Disney representative from the regional office, SACOM spokesperson Vivien Tze said that these meetings accomplished little afterward (Source: Choi 2007, p.376 link).

Despite [such] controversies, the young activists refuse to back down. ‘We will continue to fight for workers’ rights. We never intended to force factories to close. We just hope the big corporations will be less greedy in their push for profits,’ said Ms Yau (Source: Anon 2007c, p.1).

[SACOM’s influence became greater when, o]n June 29, 2007, at the meeting of the 28th session of the 10th National People’s Congress (NPC) Standing Committee, 145 attending party members voted unanimously in favor of the Labor Contract Law. Back in March 2006, when the government posted an initial draft of the law for comment on the Internet, officials received more than 190,000 responses from the concerned public in one month. The NPC Legal Affairs Commission moved to finalize the legislation following tragic reports of slave labor conditions in the brick kilns of the Shanxi Province … Over these three decades, one of the most unsettling problems in our country is the blatant abuse of workers’ rights. … Labor contracts in written form, if provided at all, have been predominantly short-term. Now, with the passage of the law, we’re able to better regulate the rights and obligations of both parties. We’ll also strengthen the monitoring role of local labor officials. The persons-in-charge who abuse their authority or neglect their responsibilities, thus resulting in serious harm to the interests of workers, will face administrative penalties or criminal prosecution (Source: Chan 2009, p.43).

Chinese workers have been keen to use the new labor law as their weapon. In the first six months of 2008, Guangdong courts handled about 40,000 labor disputes – a 157.7 percent increase from last year, in which the Pearl River Delta area accounted for 96.5 percent of all cases. According to the Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security statistics, in the same period, arbitrated labor disputes soared by 300 percent in Guangdong, 145 percent in Chongqing, and 92.5 percent in Shanghai. Meanwhile, civil society organizations are increasingly using the law to fight for Chinese workers’ rights. At the community level, frontline NGO labor organizers distribute leaflets that simplify the terms of labor laws and regulations, offer workers free legal consultation hotlinesand labor law training classes, and represent workers in lawsuits. In the workplace, labor rights trainers encourage sustainable dialogue between managers and workers by establishing democratic representative mechanisms. Elected worker representatives should be able to exercise their legal right to discuss with management work rules that directly bear on the workers’ interests (per LCL, Article 4). Including workers in the day-to-day monitoring process is the key to promoting workplace democracy in China’s globalized political economy (Source: Chan 2009, p.49).

SACOM will continue to monitor the unethical outsourcing practices of multinationals, which have resulted in sweatshop conditions in China and other parts of the world. We strive to hold violating firms such as Disney responsible, and operate with transparency, integrity and accountability to the workers and the public concerned. In September 2007, SACOM published a report entitled ‘Haowei Toys brings you…Mickey Mouse‘ and met with representatives of the ILS department of the Walt Disney (Asia Pacific) Company in Hong Kong. Despite our efforts, Disney, its licensee, and Haowei management have refused to compensate the aggrieved workers fighting for unpaid overtime wages and severance pay. Moreover, the factory managers have not announced any specific arrangements of relocation and re-employment (Haowei will probably relocate to Dongguan by the end of this month). SACOM urges Disney to uphold its corporate code of conduct – which was translated into more than 50 languages – to resolve the labor disputes at its Chinese supplier Haowei immediately. … Dongguan-based Tianyu and Yonglida Toys, suppliers of stuffed toys to Disney, are founded not paying overtime wages to their workers, withholding basic wages for up to 45 days, forcing workers to work extremely long hours, cheating workers of employment contracts, and housing workers in unhygienic dormitory conditions. Despite these violations, Tianyu still received the International Council of Toy Industries (ICTI) Seal of Compliance in June 2005, and it has since been renewed. Not surprisingly, Disney has far avoided communicating with SACOM about abusive conditions at either Tianyu or Yonglida factories. … By the end of December 2007, SACOM is going to publish a report about a printing supplier of Disney. For previous ones, please surf our website at www.sacom.hk:

• Looking for Mickey Mouse’s Conscience: A Survey of the Working Conditions of Disney’s Supplier Factories in China (August 2005)
• A Second Attempt at Looking for Mickey Mouse’s Conscience: A Survey of the Working Conditions of Disney’s Supplier Factories in China (December 2006)
• Haowei Toys Brings You…Mickey Mouse: A Survey of Conditions at a Disney Supplier in China (September 2007)
• Tianyu Toys Brings You…Winnie the Pooh: A Survey of Conditions at a Disney Supplier in China (October 2007)
• Yonglida Toys Brings You … X-Mas Gifts: A Survey of Conditions at a Disney Supplier in China (November 2007) (Source: SACOM 2007a, p.5)

Mr Iger

SACOM sent letters to Disney on the 24th August 2005 and 8th December 2006 asking to discuss Disney’s efforts to implement a code of conduct in China. To date, we’ve received no reply. In a third attempt, we send out this public letter requesting a face-to-face meeting with you.

Before the opening of Disney’s 5th theme park, Hong Kong Disneyland, SACOM joined a group of university students who identified themselves as ‘Disney Hunters’ to launch the Looking for Mickey Mouse’s Conscience Campaign in September of 2005. During these 2 1⁄2 years, we exposed 11 Disney sweatshops in China (for all 6 reports in Chinese and English, visit www.sacom.hk). Our first-hand investigations document illegal wage payments, excessive and forced overtime, non- provision of social security, unsafe production environments, humiliating management practices, and substandard living conditions (see Appendix I for a short review of workers experience).

Disney requires all its suppliers to comply with the Disney code of conduct. In theory, this code of conduct should ensure that workers producing Disney products enjoy minimum rights. Yet Disney requires suppliers to offer toys & children’s books at the lowest possible costs and on the tightest of schedules. Although it’s the suppliers’ responsibility to follow Chinese labor law, the pressure Disney exerts on prices and production schedules give Chinese suppliers little room for workers’ rights.

What is more, Disney completely fails to identify and resolve labor rights violations in its supply chain. Disney established its code of conduct in 1996 and started monitoring in 1997, but we continue to see serious labor abuses at Disney suppliers around the world. The Disney code of conduct thus becomes a tool for Disney to shift corporate responsibility downward to its suppliers. Rather than collaborating with suppliers to work out corrective actions, Disney tells consumers to look at its code of conduct, while behind the scenes, Disney continues to drive prices down and shorten production schedules. All the while, in China, workers at tens of thousands of Disney suppliers struggle to have a voice.

Disney recorded $34.3 billion in sales for 2006, and so consumers know it’s possible for Disney to do better. Between the 12th September and 31st December 2007, 1,049 students, professors, labor and human rights’ activists, parents, and Disney fans petitioned the International Labor Standards (ILS) Program of Disney at http://www.PetitionOnline.com/wlchan/petition.html (See Appendix II for a review of consumers’ comments on the deficiencies of Disney’s code of conduct efforts). Consumers stand in solidarity with Chinese workers and workers in other countries.

SACOM and other non-government organizations want to move on from this gridlock. We want to help Disney improve the enforcement of the Disney code of conduct. In the end, we believe Disney needs to permit public scrutiny of its efforts by disclosing to the public the full list of its outsourcing suppliers. This is only what other proactive firms like Nike have done. We further believe that Disney needs to give every Chinese worker a copy of Disney’s code of conduct, and that Disney should support and respect workers’ right to develop mechanisms of worker representation at all Disney suppliers.

Whatever Disney does to improve, Disney needs to work with the public to show its willingness to fulfill the promises embodied in its code of conduct. SACOM and other non-government organizations want to help Disney effectively respond to these problems. And this is why we’re asking to meet with you, Mr. Iger. We hope you’ll respond. …

Sincerely,

Jenny Chan & Vivien Yau – Students and Scholars Against Corporate Misbehaviour [+ representatives of 24 organisations and 1049 consumers]

(Source: Chan & Yau 2008, 1-3).

In early 2008, Students and Scholars Against Corporate Misbehavior (SACOM) negotiated with Hong Kong-owned Hung Hing Printing Group about its unlawful practices targeting veteran workers. The 10,000-worker Hung Hing Printing (Shenzhen) factory was allegedly exploiting young migrant workers who made Disney-branded children’s books in the summer of 2005 [as featured in Those With Justice]. After negative media exposure, the factory management had replaced dangerous machinery to improve occupational safety and health. On January 28, 2008, when the new labor law had taken effect, Hung Hing issued a company notice:

‘Hung Hing is going to renew its contracts with all workers on or before January 30, 2008. A three- year fixed-term contract between February 14, 2008 and December 31, 2010 shall be concluded, or labor contracts terminated.’

The 400-plus workers who had been working in Hung Hing for more than 10 consecutive years were the hardest hit by this new policy, as the company refused to grant open-term contracts to them (per LCL Article 14, Section 1). Several workers immediately approached the workplace-based union for help. Unsurprisingly, given the fact that both the union chairperson and vice chairperson were top-level managers, the workers’ efforts were futile. In an open letter 25 undersigned by hundreds of his co-workers, a 38-year-old male warehouse department worker who had been at the company since December 1994, explained:

‘We all thought that the Labor Contract Law going into effect on January 1 would have showered us – the weak and disadvantaged masses – with blessings. Our youth is gone with the days of the growth of the company. To our profound disappointment, none of us were offered open-term contracts despite years of diligent work. In our thirties to forties, we are under heavy familial burden. We are afraid of losing our jobs. We feel this is extremely unfair and we are angry, too.’

In May 2008, once the Law on the Mediation and Arbitration of Employment Disputes was enforced, the core group of 64 workers filed their collective dispute with the local arbitration committee (the Mediation and Arbitration of Employment Disputes Law Article 53 stipulates that arbitration fees, amounting to several hundred yuan, are waived). In response to public pressure to look for ‘Mickey Mouse’s conscience’ and increased worker actions, Disney – one of the biggest customers of Hung Hing – stepped in to clear up the ‘misunderstandings between factory, management, and workers.’ The most adversely affected workers, buoyed by both the levers of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and the new labor laws, finally reached economic compensation agreements with their managers (Source: Chan 2009, p.46-7).

In response to the disturbing investigation results and the workers’ complaint letter, SACOM has built alliances with a number of unions and campaign groups in the US and Europe such as the Writer’s Guild, Sweatshop Watch, USAS and CCC Austria to launch round two of the campaign against Disney (Source: unionvoice.org {link expired}).

It is not clear what economic effects consience-consumerism and the SACOM campaign had at the time on The Walt Disney Company. But Disney clearly recognised that it was going to be criticised for supporting exploitative factories, and also for abandoning exploitative factories. That criticism targeted the authenticity of the Disney brand, and placed the company’s reputation at risk (Source: Kossofsky 2012, p.178).

SACOM’s Disney Project ‘promises to persist in monitoring and disclosing any violations of labor laws in Disney’s supplier factories in China [and hopes] … to awaken the conscience of Disney. John R. Lund, senior vice president of Disney Parks Supply Chain Management for Disney Destinations LLC, who epitomizes the company’s conscience. Before 2008, when Lund took the top supply chain job at Disney Destinations, the Disney arm that oversees theme parks, resorts, and cruise lines around the globe, the company’s supply chain operations focused on cost containment. Now supply chain operations focus on all six reputational pillars. The company works with suppliers it considers to be of high integrity, and has formed stronger relationships with fewer suppliers. ‘We have reduced the number of vendors by over 50 percent in the last four years’, Lund said. He believes that suppy chains can drive shareholder value by improving operating income, asset utilization, and the company’s reputation. ‘The reputation of a company is fundamentally affected by the choices you make in running a supply chain,’ he said (Source: Kossofsky 2012, p.185).

When consumers and workers from different nations hold hands together, our cross-border solidarity will a difference and eventually will make them change. Let us continue to build stronger consumer-worker alliances to chase the big multinationals wherever they go or hide. This is what we call a real globalization, a globalization of justice and a globalization of human dignity (Source: Leung 2006, p.3)!