Your typical outworker (or homeworker) is essentially a contractor who creates fashion garments from a residential property. But as decades of battles between union groups and businesses will attest, the issues around outworkers are far more complicated than this simple definition lets on.
As the Textile, Clothing and Footwear Union of Australia (TCFUA) pushes ahead with its bid to enforce tighter laws on outworkers, the Council of Textile and Fashion Industries of Australia (TFIA) is now calling for provisions to be loosened. The disagreement between the two was made public after the TFIA sent out a press release with comments from chief executive officer Jo Kellock condemning aspects of the current industry award for outworkers. Under this, outworkers must be engaged for a minimum of 20 hours per week in an employer/employee relationship, with full entitlements to be paid by the employer.
Kellock said although the intent of the legislation is to protect the vulnerable, outworkers have now lost flexibility to work their own hours and to operate as independent contractors. She said one section of the award states in each ordinary working week ‘where the worker is ready, willing and able to work’, a principal must pay the worker for either 38 hours work or the agreed number of part-time hours work.
“Does that mean if the outworker is not ‘ready, willing and able to work’ then the principal is relieved of their obligation to provide work?,” Kellock said. “This is a legitimate question because outworkers are telling us they don’t always want to work continuously or be forced to as some of them like the flexibility to be able to take school holidays when the kids are home etc.”
Other concerns included an onerous compliance regime, requiring volumes of paperwork, personal details and in some instances, entry into outworker homes for inspections. The public slating came as a shock to the TCFUA’s national secretary, Michele O’Neil, who said organisations and businesses need to work together, not against each other.
Senior lecturer and academic from Monash University, Shelley Marshall, has spent years researching unregulated workers in Australia and she says it can be tough to get to grips with the codes and legislations and that many people in the retail sector are still unsure what they all entail.
Earlier this year, Queensland introduced its own complicated mandatory code to protect outworkers. Each time a shipment of clothes is received by a retailer, the owner must fill out paperwork declaring that each supplier in the chain is paying its employees award rates.
Kellock stressed that the TFIA only has concerns over the national award. Kellock said there is no longer an ‘incentive’ to start a manufacturing business from home, as the current award creates incentives to bring manufacturing into commercial premises, or take it offshore.
“Good institutions create incentives for work based on laws established for a sound reason,” Kellock said. “Yes protecting vulnerable outworkers is a sound reason - but not all outworkers are vulnerable.”
She said the ‘incentive’ is now lost because all monies that were received by an outworker under a business structure for sales, are now converted to a fixed wage income by the principal giving them the work.
“We have always had a good working relationship with TCFUA and I believe that will continue,” Kellock said. “I have a lot of respect for Michele O’Neil and the outstanding job she has done on behalf of outworkers and employees. Perhaps this has been to the detriment of employers.”
O’Neil said she was shocked to hear of TFIA’s attack on the award, particularly as both bodies had met only just a few weeks ago to discuss the legislation.
She said as outworkers are particularly vulnerable to exploitation, the current awards, which are not new, are there to ensure outworkers are safe and are paid the correct wage.
“When we last met with TFIA we said if there were any concerns we would be happy to meet again – so I was surprised to hear that their concerns had come out in this way,” O’Neil said. “The TFIA is going against the tide as we have spoken to may reputable companies who fully support the legislation.
“It just seems to be a very small group of vocal people who are complaining.”
Academic Marshall, who has recently met with many outworkers in Australia to aid her research, said it is thanks to the legislation, and more retailers getting involved in monitoring their supply chains, that the level of outworker exploitation has improved.
Marshall said that many well-known, big Australian retailers are unaware that there are exploited outworkers in their supply chain as there can be so much outsourcing and ‘middle men’.
“There is probably a minimum of 30,000 outworkers in Australia, but as more Australian companies are doing the right thing, despite what negative things in their supply chain they may unearth, the number of those being exploited is reducing,” Marshall said.
She said back in 2001 many were getting paid $3-$5 an hour, but now lots more are getting paid the minimum wage of $17.40, or just under.
More and more Australian fashion brands, such as Cue, Collette Dinnigan, Ginger & Smart, Gideon Shoes and Nobody are signing up to be accredited by Ethical Clothing Australia (ECA). The ECA is a joint union-business initiative which provides accreditation for businesses with ethical working conditions for garment workers.
Just days after the TFIA and TCFUA clashed, the ECA launched its Meet Your Maker (MYM) campaign. The scheme allows accredited brands to reveal the faces behind the production of the country’s fashion, while educating consumers about the importance of fair trade in the garment industry.
Accredited brands feature swing tags with specialist codes on the back, which the customer can either swipe with their smart phone, or type the number into the MYM website.
This will then provide the consumer with detailed information about the person who made the clothing, such as their name, age, skill-set and how long they have been in the industry for.
ECA’s national manager, Simon McRae, said contrary to common opinion ‘Australian made’ does not always mean ethically made. “We know that retailing in Australia is tough at the moment, but this campaign aims to support and promote the businesses that are committed to manufacturing ethically in Australia,” McRae said. “A major focus of the ECA accreditation program is to ensure that homeworkers or outworkers are not exploited and they receive their pay and legal entitlements including leave, super and workers compensation as guaranteed under the law.”
McRae said the brands that chose not to be involved did not provide a reason but the idea of the campaign is that all accredited fashion manufacturers will benefit.
“It’s also challenging working with small and medium-sized businesses, as often they have lots on their plate and not enough time, so for some it was just the timing,” he said.
Director of Australian beach shorts brand The Rocks Push, Kirsten Ainsworth, said she would love for her brand to be accredited with the ECA, but said it is proving ‘almost impossible’ to have her products manufactured in Australia. Having a background in ethical fashion, Ainsworth said she has always been keen to have her product made within the country, but has struggled to find a manufacturer to fulfill her needs.
“It would be fantastic to make the products here, but the industry is dying as Australia is finding it hard to compete with some of the other countries,” Ainsworth said. “We should be at the top of our game, but we are losing out to places like China, where they have the latest machinery and technologies and the quick turnarounds – they make it so easy.”
Ainsworth, who is due to meet up with an Australian manufacturer in the hope of a possible venture, said she fails to see any valid reason as to why Australian produced brands and manufactures would not to sign up for the MYM scheme if their goods are made here.
Australian-owned women’s clothing retailer Cue is one of the country’s well-known fashion brands which has signed up to ECA’s MYM campaign. Cue CEO David Kesby said he cannot understand any reasoning that other brands could come up with that would justify them not joining the ECA.
“I think it is important that if you are going to make garments in Australia then you subject yourself to an audit-type scheme to ensure that any potential exploitation of Australian workers does not take place,” Kesby said. “For Cue, being the largest manufacturer of women’s fashion in this country, a local supply chain not only differentiates from the rest of the fashion market, but is actually critical to our success.”
He also said it is strange the TCFUA and the TFIA have clashed, given they have the common goal of a healthy local manufacturing industry in Australia.
Co-founder of Gideon Shoes, Matt Noffs, said ‘it was love at first sight’ when he was introduced them to the ECA. He said the campaign humanises the issue and turns a negative into a positive focus on the brands working to improve lives. “In 10 years time, if you can’t prove there’s equality in your supply chain then you won’t just lose legitimacy, it’s very likely you’ll be taken off shelves - like CFCs in aerosols,” Noffs said. “I know it’s tough out there, but we need to put our minds and hearts into finding solutions. We need to aim for profits without profiteering.”
Issues have also arisen over Queensland’s new mandatory system, with retailers lobbying against the need for ‘time-consuming’ forms. Ragtrader reader Lisa Hovar, who owns the Maternity Revolution clothing business in Queensland, said most retailers are unsure what the code is fully about, so wonder why they must comply with it.
Currumbin MP Jann Stuckey wants the local government to consult with affected Queensland businesses and simplify the ‘red-tape’.
“Labor has run around screaming about cracking-down on ‘sweatshops’ when all it’s done is frustrate local contract workers and force what’s left of local manufacturing offshore,” Stuckey said. “Their witch-hunt, under the guise of this Mandatory Code of Practice, has damaged businesses and local jobs.”
Department of justice and attorney-general, Barry Leahy, said an evaluation of the Queensland Homeworkers Code of Practice will incorporate feedback from the industry about implementing the code over the past 10 months.
“Through the evaluation process we will work with businesses, unions and other stakeholders to ensure the code is practical and effective when applied,” Leahy said.
