Monday, August 5, 2013

AFL-CIO Sought Removal of GSP Benefits on Bangladesh Five (5) Years Ago Due to Worker’s Rights Deficiencies

Five (5) years and several high-profiled tragedies later, GSP treatment of all goods of Bangladesh origin will be suspended, effective September 3, 2013.


GSP stands for the Generalized System of Preferences which allows for the duty-free entry of roughly 3,500 GSP eligible products.

The AFL-CIO exists to represent people who work.  Read their mission statement below.

In 2007, the GSP Subcommittee accepted for review a GSP country practice petition submitted by the AFL-CIO seeking the removal of GSP benefits for Bangladesh based on the country's non-compliance with the GSP statutory eligibility criteria related to worker rights.

The GSP Subcommittee held public hearings on the petition in October 2007, April 2009, and January 2012, and also invited public comments on the petition on several occasions.

In 2011, U.S. imports from Bangladesh under GSP totaled $26.3 million. A full list of U.S. imports from Bangladesh under GSP may be found in the www.regulations.gov in docket number  USTR-2012-0036-0001.

While the leading GSP imports from Bangladesh included tobacco products, sports equipment, china kitchenware, and plastic articles, by being a GSP beneficiary country, it also had duty-free treatment on a number of textile accessories and some women’s or girls wearing apparel.

After reviewing the most recently available information, including updated reports from the AFL-CIO, the GSP Subcommittee believed that the lack of progress by the government of Bangladesh in addressing worker rights issues in the country warranted consideration of possible withdrawal, suspension, or limitation of Bangladesh's trade benefits under GSP. 

By statute, i.e., law, however, such change in Bangladesh's trade benefits under GSP required the President to make a determination, which he finally did.

On June 27, 2013, by Proclamation, President Obama revoked Bangladesh’s privilege of receiving treatment as a beneficiary developing country GSP.

As stated in his Proclamation, the reason for the revocation was because Bangladesh “has not taken or is not taking steps to afford internationally recognized worker rights to workers in [its] country."

The original petition and other information related to the review of Bangladesh are available for public viewing on www.regulations.gov in docket USTR-2012-0036.

For more information on GSP and GSP Eligible Products, click here.

AFL-CIO MISSION STATEMENT (as per its website)

The American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations is an expression of the hopes and aspirations of the working people of America.

We resolve to fulfill the yearning of the human spirit for liberty, justice and community; to advance individual and associational freedom; to vanquish ­oppression, privation and cruelty in all their forms; and to join with all persons, of whatever nationality or faith, who cherish the cause of democracy and the call of solidarity, to grace the planet with these achievements.

We dedicate ourselves to improving the lives of working families, bringing fairness and dignity to the workplace and securing social equity in the Nation.

Questions/comments?  Post below or email me at clark.deanna@gmail.com

Keep up with me:

On Twitter @fashcompliance  https://twitter.com/fashcompliance

4 comments:

  1. Deanna, thanks for this informative post. I have to say I'm torn about the efficacy of suspending GSP or any trade benefits for violation of labor rights, particularly when it is the industry that has moved around the world in search of cheap inputs and even cheaper labor which, if you'll pardon the pun, don't come "cheap" in terms of the potential for violation of labor rights. What's to stop the companies from just moving on to the next "best bargain" country as a result of the suspension? Policies and responses that anticipate that very real possibility are what I'd love to see.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Love your work....thanks. Great read.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Andrea, I too question the efficacy of government policies to address an endemic apparel (and other) industry problem.

    I think the onus rests with the consumer who ultimately decides to purchase or not purchase. This will sound cliché (so I'm apologizing in advance!) but at the end of the day, money talks.

    If we want to address consumer consciousness and the market's addiction to cheap imports by raising awareness, a suspension in a trade program that few consumers would know about is not really an effective way to go as, to your point, cheaper sources will be looked to.

    Thanks for your comment!

    ReplyDelete
  4. @Anonymous - Glad you find the material interesting! Thanks!

    ReplyDelete