{"title":"Doing the Right Thing? COVID-19, PPE and the Case of Sri Lankan Apparels","authors":"K. Ruwanpura","doi":"10.15173/glj.v13i1.5064","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Sri Lankan apparels is often considered the poster child for global apparels, given its heightened attentiveness to global ethical codes and increasingly eco-friendly production. In tune with this image, Sri Lankan apparel industrialists were also quick to shift gears and move into the production of personal protective equipment (PPE) with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. While other supplier countries in South Asia and Asia faltered, Sri Lankan apparels had its sights on other possibilities – securing one of the largest orders for PPE by May 2020. Alongside and yet again in contrast to other suppliers, Sri Lankan apparels also struck a tripartite agreement to protect worker jobs and secure wages at no less than minimum wages. All seemed well. Yet by early October 2020, Sri Lankan apparels came into the media spotlight, when the outbreak of a COVID-positive case occurred at one of the largest and most reputable apparel producers – BRANDIX, which then fast became a cluster that led to community transmission (Jeewandra et al., 2021: 14–15). This attention has not faded since then. It is a year since this fall from grace, and an opportune time to reflect and digest possible causes – partly due to the pandemic, but I want to argue also due to structural facets underpinning the global supply chain and Sri Lankan apparels itself. Reports of factory closures were frequent at the start of the pandemic, from Bangladesh to Cambodia, with costs borne by workers with job losses, lost wages and non-payment exposed (Carswell, De Neve and Yuvaraj, 2020; Cook et al. 2020; Toppa, 2020). The early days of the pandemic were a blow to labourers. Despite hardships endured by workers, reactionary forces called for the stripping of prevailing labour laws, particularly pronounced in India (Gaur, 2020; Scroll In, 2020). In Sri Lanka, too, some sections of employers were calling for suspension of labour laws (Amerasinghe, 2020), but Sri Lankan labouring classes secured a semblance of security. By 25 May 2020, IndustriALL (2020) reported a successful tripartite agreement. The essence of this settlement was that workers not in work during May and June “will be paid 50 per cent of their wages or LKR 14 500 (US $77.00), whichever is more beneficial”. Additionally, the “employees provident fund (EPF) and employees trust fund (ETF) contributions on the wages will also be paid to workers” (IndustriALL: unpaginated). Correspondingly, the apparel sector had secured success in shifting to","PeriodicalId":44737,"journal":{"name":"Global Labour Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Labour Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15173/glj.v13i1.5064","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS & LABOR","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4
Abstract
Sri Lankan apparels is often considered the poster child for global apparels, given its heightened attentiveness to global ethical codes and increasingly eco-friendly production. In tune with this image, Sri Lankan apparel industrialists were also quick to shift gears and move into the production of personal protective equipment (PPE) with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. While other supplier countries in South Asia and Asia faltered, Sri Lankan apparels had its sights on other possibilities – securing one of the largest orders for PPE by May 2020. Alongside and yet again in contrast to other suppliers, Sri Lankan apparels also struck a tripartite agreement to protect worker jobs and secure wages at no less than minimum wages. All seemed well. Yet by early October 2020, Sri Lankan apparels came into the media spotlight, when the outbreak of a COVID-positive case occurred at one of the largest and most reputable apparel producers – BRANDIX, which then fast became a cluster that led to community transmission (Jeewandra et al., 2021: 14–15). This attention has not faded since then. It is a year since this fall from grace, and an opportune time to reflect and digest possible causes – partly due to the pandemic, but I want to argue also due to structural facets underpinning the global supply chain and Sri Lankan apparels itself. Reports of factory closures were frequent at the start of the pandemic, from Bangladesh to Cambodia, with costs borne by workers with job losses, lost wages and non-payment exposed (Carswell, De Neve and Yuvaraj, 2020; Cook et al. 2020; Toppa, 2020). The early days of the pandemic were a blow to labourers. Despite hardships endured by workers, reactionary forces called for the stripping of prevailing labour laws, particularly pronounced in India (Gaur, 2020; Scroll In, 2020). In Sri Lanka, too, some sections of employers were calling for suspension of labour laws (Amerasinghe, 2020), but Sri Lankan labouring classes secured a semblance of security. By 25 May 2020, IndustriALL (2020) reported a successful tripartite agreement. The essence of this settlement was that workers not in work during May and June “will be paid 50 per cent of their wages or LKR 14 500 (US $77.00), whichever is more beneficial”. Additionally, the “employees provident fund (EPF) and employees trust fund (ETF) contributions on the wages will also be paid to workers” (IndustriALL: unpaginated). Correspondingly, the apparel sector had secured success in shifting to