Member of Students Organizing for Labor and Economic Equality's "Sweatfree" campaign anxiously awaiting the University's review of the Designated Suppliers Program and the current Vendor Code of Conduct received mixed news of change last month.

The vendor code monitors conditions and procedures of University licensed apparel suppliers.

While a review by the University's Labor Standards and Human Rights Committee found enforcement problems with the vendor code, the DSP did not garner high marks.

The DSP - the goal of the ongoing "Sweatfree" campaign - would extend international labor laws to include provisions requiring union representation for workers and that workers are paid a "living wage," or the minimum wage needed to sustain workers and their families for a 48-hour workweek.

The DSP also requires regular inspections by the Worker Rights Consortium - the nonprofit organization developing the program.

Since September 2005, SOLE members, often sporting chains or red armbands, were a visible presence on campus through marches and demonstrations. In April, the Michigan Student Assembly passed a resolution supporting SOLE and the DSP, urging Coleman to adopt the program.

The committee's recommendations do not mark the end of the issue for either the University or SOLE.

During an April meeting with concerned SOLE members, Coleman emphasized that the recommendation does not mean the University will no longer consider the DSP or may not adopt the program in the future.

"For the committee to say to me the DSP is not the right route is not rejecting the problem," Coleman said.

Coleman told the group she had previously declined their repeated requests for a meeting in order to follow protocol and allow the committee time to complete its task.

At the meeting, SOLE members stressed their desire to stay involved in further developments with the University's decisions regarding the DSP or any alternative proposals.

Following the Labor Standards and Human Rights Committee's report last month, University President Mary Sue Coleman accepted the recommendation not to implement the program in a letter to committee chair Lawrence Root dated May 2.

In her letter, Coleman directed the committee to work with groups, such as the WRC, to develop feasible ways to improve the VCC.

Members unanimously voted to recommend that the University upgrade oversight and enforcement procedures, but voted against a measure to recommend the DSP to Coleman by a seven-to-two vote.

In its report, the committee recognized faults with the enforcement of the University's current vendor code, including the logistical challenge of monitoring all factories producing clothing with the University logo and that competition may discourage factories from following code. The committee also noted the University may have little influence over suppliers' behavior.

In his report to Coleman, Root expressed concern over the University's ability to enforce the current version of the DSP because the University has more than 500 licensees. He also cited reservations about the program's premise that factories with better working conditions are disadvantaged when competing with suppliers who do not follow code.

Not everyone on the committee is in agreement about the DSP. In a letter outlining his disagreement with the recommendation, committee member and RC Prof. Ian Robinson said the DSP was dismissed too quickly as a possible solution.

Robinson and SOLE members also suggested including more undergraduates and non-tenure faculty on future committees.

Coleman - who also charged the University's Trademark and Licensing Office to set standards mandating licensees to document the Code's enforcement - set a deadline of December 2006 for the committee's next progress report on changes to the Code.