The Manufacturing Dialogues: Skill Transfer Program
Introduction:
This is an ongoing recording of a series of dialogs between members of our Manufacturing Group, charged with the task of developing exceptional standards for jewelry manufacturing. Follow this link for full review of past discussions. The entire principles and standards document can be found here.
In this portion, I introduce the Skill Transfer Program, which is part of our Second Standard, Labor. Comments from participants follow.
~Marc Choyt, Publisher, Fairjewelry.org
Marc Choyt Wrote:
Let us now consider the final part of the labor standard, the “Skill Transfer Program.”
In our principle discussions, there was quite a lot of discussion around this issue. You can review it if you wish from a post that was published on June 6th, 2008. https://fairjewelry.org/archives/179
Below is my best effort at capturing the intent of those discussions. Thank you for your own going consideration and participation. Please see the section below.
Skill Transfer Program
Introductory Comments:
Jewelry craft traditions are often passed down over generations, through families or villages. In developed and developing countries alike, parents often teach their children such skills at a very young age. Outside of a direct family unit, however, jewelers employing young people must have some kind of formal program in place with established criteria, which offers the apprentice clear goals and fair compensation during the learning process. Formal education will not be interrupted in order to perform workplace functions.
Principle:
In the case of young people serving in a skill transfer program, whether conducted in a factory or as part of the cultural heritage of a family or community, the work of a young person would be accepted, with the proviso that health is not compromised, and that labor is fairly compensated.
Standard:
Minimum requirements for all fair made companies:
2.16: A formal evaluation, at least twice a year, is put in place to determine what skills have been mastered and what skills still need to be transferred.
2.17: Once the skills have been mastered, the worker shall be paid a fair wage in context to his or her abilities in the market.
2.18: Any manufacturing company employing young people must have a formal document which outlines the set of skills that are being taught.
Progressive requirements:
2.19p: Fair made factories pay for additional basic schooling outside of the plant for the apprentice during the skill transfer program.
2.20p: The company shall provide opportunities for skill improvement and up-skilling for existing employees.
Martin Rizzi wrote:
On-the-job training for young people is a well-established tradition in the family silver jewelry workshops in Taxco Mexico.
Spratling Renaissance is a recent revival of jewelry apprenticeship
Patrick Schein wrote:
I would suggest to push up 2.19p into minimum requirements. Employing young people should NOT prevent them from going to school. If young workers are employed for Fairmade jewelry then the factory MUST make sure they go to school in the meantime.
We should also set 15 as a mininum age and no dangerous tasks if less than 18years old.
Flavia Wrote:
I agree with Patrick. Education should not be prevented at any age.
Assisting financially in education for young people up to 18 would be a great asset. Making educational funds (possibly a certain % of the revenue?) available for all employees would be an initiative workers would appreciate.
Also, adding the minimum age of employable people at 15 is very realistic.
Great job Marc.
Marc Choyt said:
One hesitation about setting the age at 15 is that there might be situations in particular countries where this type of scenario is already defined, and that age might be 14 or 16 or 17. Perhaps we should add something to the text like — there’s probably a better was to phrase it, but here’s a start:
“The minimum age for the work transfer program shall be 15 years old, unless the laws in the country state otherwise.”
Patrick, I don’t know how to work in the “dangerous” task element. Does that mean that a 15 year old could not work on a lapidary saw? Even polishing can be dangerous. Would it be correct to assume that a formal Skills Transfer Program would properly train a young person into working safely with machinery or situations that are dangerous?
Anyone have any thoughts on this?
Patrick Schein Wrote:
I think that FairMade must improve the situation, so if the country does allow 14 year olds to work, then NO FAIRMADE for the companies not employing 15 year olds. We are not creating standards to label existing methods but rather improving them. If a company cannot avoid employing 14 year olds in their workforce, then they do not deserve having the “label ” which will be recognized in the consumer world. That’s it. That’s the deal!
Regarding dangerous work, I refer to intensive work, and work that can affect health. I am not a specialist on those issues but I do think that any work that exposes a young worker to danger or health problems does not deserve the FAIRMADE sticker.
Can anybody with more knowledge on child labor help here please?
Greg Valerio Wrote:
Although Patrick’s idea is a best case scenario to which we would all agree, I tend to support a more pragmatic application of child labour. In my experience fairtrade works best in marginal communities who by definition are poor.
In many cases children are the parents (HIV) and therefore the prescriptive arguments of 14, 15, 16 really is a luxury discussion. The truth is each case is different, each law is different and we need to be flexible in our application of principles. The principle of education is a given, it is then how do you work that pragmatically into the specific situation?
No exploitation is a given, but if a rule that says no under 15’s means a teenager cannot work to put bread on the table then we have failed in our duty of care to be inclusive and improve that child’s life.
There are of course many illustrations of this point and many good working models that can inform our query. I think maybe we need to continue to be descriptive here until we get to the point of testing our theories with some pilot projects.
Katherine DalPra wrote:
I like Greg’s notion of testing our ideas on a few pilot projects. Are we able to be somewhat flexible in our initial definitions so that we have an opportunity to observe them in action?
I think that both Greg and Patrick have valid perspectives and I could see where a little preliminary testing might be insightful to help us iron out how some of these details should be worded/executed.
Thanks for the great input everyone!!!
Vivien Johnstone Wrote:
I agree with Patrick and Flavia’s comments in principle.
I think anything which could be harmful in the immediate or long term should be excluded from a child’s or young person’s activities in the workshop. This would include using harmful chemicals, working with equipment which cause could lose of limb, eyesight or hearing and of course anything which could cause death.
Proper training should be implemented and eye protection, gloves, masks provided. However, again the question arises of who will pay for this?
Greg makes a very good point that where a 14 year old is either a parent or indeed the primary care person of their younger siblings, it is wrong to exclude them from making a fair living.
However, fundamentally I believe our standards will reduce exploitation and improve working knowledge of health and safety in workshops and factories. This is extremely empowering for all employees.
I believe our aim is to enable this empowerment as a priority.
Children aged 6 working as lapidaries or polishers where they may lose
fingers or eyesight is something which we cannot condone or support under any circumstance. Education is, in my opinion, the best opportunity of long-term poverty alleviation.
However, teenage youths present a grey area and it is difficult to be prescriptive on the maturity (and financial needs) of a 14, 15 or 16 year old versus an 18 year old, in many communities.
I agree with Greg that it may be best to focus our attention on creating best working practices and that ages and definitions be worked on at the time of pilot studies where we will have more of a practical application.
Marc Choyt wrote:
At this point, with the aim of moving forward I have taken Patrick’s suggestion of moving 2.19p to the minimum requirement. I have also incorporated a second paragraph in our Introductory Comment which includes Greg’s point of waiting for a pilot project to make an absolute determination of age.
I believe it is fine to simply say that this issue will be determined on the ground.
Below I propose a final version of the Skill Transfer program for your review. Thank you for your ongoing consideration.
Introductory Comments:
Jewelry craft traditions are often passed down over generations, through families or villages. In developed and developing countries alike, parents often teach their children such skills at a very young age. Outside of a direct family unit, however, jewelers employing young people must have some kind of formal program in place with established criteria, which offers the apprentice clear goals and fair compensation during the learning process. Formal education will not be interrupted in order to perform workplace functions.
In our discussions, we could not settle exactly on the age when such a program should be started. We recognized the need to be flexible in our application of this principle until we get to the point of testing our approaches on pilot projects.
Principle:
In the case of young people serving in a skill transfer program, whether conducted in a factory or as part of the cultural heritage of a family or community, the work of a young person would be accepted, with the proviso that health is not compromised, and that labor is fairly compensated.
Standard:
Minimum requirements for all fair made companies:
2.16: A formal evaluation, at least twice a year, is put in place to determine what skills have been mastered and what skills still need to be transferred.
2.17: Once the skills have been mastered, the worker shall be paid a fair wage in context to his or her abilities in the market.
2.18: Any manufacturing company employing young people must have a formal document which outlines the set of skills that are being taught.
2.19p: Fair made factories pay for additional basic schooling outside of the plant for the apprentice during the skill transfer program.
Progressive requirements:
2.20p: The company shall provide opportunities for skill improvement and up-skilling for existing employees.
