Yardsticks for Workers Rights:
Learning from Experience

Abuse and Harassment

Introduction
Measurability issues
Current strengths
Current weaknesses
Best current practices (selected)
Possible improvements suggested by analysis

Measuring abuse and harassment is difficult in part because it depends not only on objectively defined actions or statements but also on the harasser's subjective intent, the victim's subjective response, and subsequent events. It also tends to go hand in hand with intimidation, making abused workers afraid to report their treatment.But a recent survey of 370 women working in the Dominican Republic's export processing zones, mostly sewing machine operators under the age of 25, reportedthat 40 percent of the women said they had experienced sexual harassment on the job, ^[3] and that women who refused to comply with their harassers' requests for sexual favors were routinely threatened with dismissal, actually fired, demoted, or had their pay reduced. ^[4]

Measurability issues 

The term "abuse" is usually understood as assaults on the physical or mental well-being of workers by persons with positions of authority (such as managers, supervisors, or guards) in the course of direct, person-to-person contact - in effect, face-to-face violations of basic human dignity.  

Difficulties in measuring abuse and harassment start with uncertainties in defining objective criteria. Cultural differences and other factors can create ambiguities about whether a particular piece of behavior constitutes abuse, or a pattern of behavior amounts to harassment, even if the behavior is exactly known. For example, physical proximity or a tone of voice that would be considered normal in one culture might be threatening, or sexually improper, in another. Some abuses are obvious in any context, but many require cultural sensitivity and judgment to evaluate. Subjective forms of measurement therefore need to play a central role, with reports from workers themselves being by far the most important information source.

The potential for measurement results to be distorted by inhibition of workers is also strong. Because workers' input is so crucial and there are so few other information sources in this area, determining the risk of inhibition is a high priority. 

Measuring a climate of abuse is as important as measuring specific acts.Units of measurement therefore need to address workers' perceptions about their risk of being subjected to abuse and harassment, as well as specific episodes or events.  

In comparison to other areas, current measurement practice in the area of abuse and harassment shows a markedly lower-than-average incidence of quantitative units of measurement in numeric form, and a markedly higher-than-average dependence on qualitative units of measurement reflecting the worker perspective.

Current strengths

Current measurement practice focuses well on factory procedures for handling cases of abuse and harassment, ^[5] including the confidentiality of reporting. ^[6] Monitors check not only whether procedures exist, but also whether those procedures are actually used in practice. ^[7] They also check whether managers and supervisors receive specific training in this area, ^[8] a particularly important factor given the risks of differing perceptions between supervisors and workers about what workers would consider to be abuse. Almost no other area of workers' rights receives as much attention to procedural safeguards.

Tracking and documentation of complaints also receive more detailed attention than in most other areas of workers' rights, with specific inquiries about maintaining records of complaints and whether the abuses complained of were verified. ^[9]

How workers are disciplined for workplace infractions bears an obvious relationship to questions of abuse, and the importance of factory policy on discipline is recognized and addressed. Units of measurement include whether factory disciplinary rules are clear and in writing, ^[10] whether they restrict the forms of discipline that can be used, ^[11] whether formal warnings are issued prior to disciplinary action, ^[12] and whether there are written records of all disciplinary actions. ^[13] Good disciplinary policy is one useful indicator for lowered risk of abuse (always with the caveat that policy may not be followed in practice, and actual disciplining practice needs to be measured separately). 

The role of security guards and the military is also recognized as a potentially important factor, both as direct abusers and as contributors to a general atmosphere of fear. ^[14]

Anecdotal worker interviews are augmented by at least some statistical units of measurement for abuse reporting, ^[15] and at least some tracking of subjective progress over time. ^[16] Both statistical units of measurement and tracking measurement results over time tend to be neglected by current measurement practice in other areas of workers' rights.

Current weaknesses 

Although the importance of getting information from workers is recognized, the majority of the facts being sought are cast in question-begging form ^[17] (e.g., "are workers verbally abused?"). ^[18] These avoid capturing what conduct was actually involved and where the line between acceptable and abusive conduct is being, or should be, drawn.  

Consultation of local outsiders, either for local norms and customs or for evidence about abuses in the factory, is almost non-existent, with only two measurement units seeking information from local unions ^[19] and none from local NGOs.Arguably, the need for sensitivity to place- and culture-specific norms, which local outsiders could help to provide, is greater in this area of workers' rights than in any other. 

There are a number of questions to workers about specific forms of abuse, some quite detailed (such as, are workers forced to take off their clothes to prove they aren't stealing ^[20] ), which are potentially helpful in identifying particular abuses. ^[21] But a laundry-list approach to documenting abuses does not capture forms of abuse that are not on the list, and it may create a false sense of compliance. Terminology is also a potential problem; for example, a worker asked if she has been "mentally abused" ^[22] or "sexually harassed" ^[23] may find the question incomprehensible. More explicit and detailed questions can overcome that problem but may encounter workers' reluctance to discuss details, especially when the details are personally embarrassing. 

Finally, current practice offers no method of cross-checking, specific to issues of abuse and harassment, to see if workers are inhibited from making disclosures to interviewers about incidents of abuse involving themselves or other workers. Inhibition can occur from fear (including fear of more abuse, as well as other forms of reprisal), shame, cultural restraint (especially with sexual harassment), misunderstanding, or mistrust of the interviewer. Attempts to gauge worker inhibition generally are addressed in the Monitoring section, but there is a special need in this area because measurement depends so heavily on workers' own reports.
 

Best current practices (selected) 

·        Identifying in detail the procedures for handling abuse/harassment cases, including confidentiality, and checking their actual use (see Strengths above)

·        Determining if there are "clear, written" rules for disciplining workers and whether they include (i) explicit limits on forms of discipline that can be used, (ii) formal warnings before using them, and (iii) records of all disciplinary actions (see Strengths above)

·        Identifying elements of manager/supervisor training on discipline issues (see Strengths above)

·        Asking managers if supervisors and/or guards who abuse workers are turned over to legal authorities for prosecution ^[24]

·        Asking if security guards have power to fire workers; ^[25] and determining whetherguards are screened for previous abuses or criminal records ^[26]

·        Asking workers general questions (not directed specifically at their own experiences) about trends within the factory of instances of abuse (see Strengths above)

·        Using "laundry lists" of specific types of abuse which help monitors to be thorough. There is no one master list, but the Global Exchange 2002 report on shoe facilities in Indonesia ^[27] and the Ethical Trading Action Group's report on the Lesotho operations of the Hudson's Bay Company ^[28] identify a substantial variety of different specific abuses.

Possible improvements suggested by analysis 

1.      Separately gauge the reliability of the worker interview process (see Monitoring), and discount findings of no or low abuse that are derived from worker interviews unless facts gathered from the specific facility show that the interview process meets a pre-defined threshold of reliability.

2.      Cross-check the facts shown in written records of disciplinary actions with first-hand interviews of workers and supervisors involved, for discrepancies that might hide abuse. Do the same for oral accounts by managers, where written records are not kept.

3.      Determine if fines, suspensions, or other penalties are prescribed by management for supervisors who abuse workers, and whether any such penalties have actually been applied in practice (i.e., are there disincentives to abuse of workers, short of calling in government authorities?).

4.      Determine the level of training for security guards and whether rules to control their behavior are in place (e.g. procedures to limit firearms and use of force).

5.      Interview managers and supervisors to determine their views of whether specific hypothetical conduct constitutes abuse/harassment, and compare with views of workers on the same specific hypothetical conduct.

6.      Consult local outsiders for guidance on likely forms of abuse to look for.

7.      Consult local outsiders for second-hand evidence of abuse in the particular factory.

U.S. Law & Security | Asylum in the U.S. | Human Rights Defenders | Human Rights Issues | International Justice |
International Refugee Policy | Workers Rights | Media Room | About Us | Contribute | Jobs | Contact Us | Publications | Search | Site Map | Home