10.1177/0730888405278990WORKArmbruster-Sandoval AND OCCUPATIONS / ANTI-SWEATSHOP / November 2005 MOVEMENT & SOCIAL JUSTICE Workers of the World Unite? The Contemporary Anti-Sweatshop Movement and the Struggle for Social Justice in the Americas RALPH ARMBRUSTER-SANDOVAL University of California, Santa Barbara The contemporary anti-sweatshop movement emerged more than 10 years ago. During that time period, numerous campaigns have challenged sweatshop labor practices (particularly in the garment industry) throughout the Americas. This article examines four such campaigns that pri- marily involved Central American garment workers and U.S.-based nongovernment organiza- tions. The results of these case studies were relatively mixed. Gains (better wages and working conditions) were usually not broadened or sustained over time. What factors explain these dispa- rate outcomes? Following and expanding on theoretical concepts and models embedded within the globalization and transnational social movement literatures, the author explores that ques- tion, describing each campaign’s dynamics and comparatively analyzing all four. The author concludes with some short-term, medium-term, and long-term proposals for addressing the vari- ous obstacles that the anti-sweatshop movement currently faces. Keywords: sweatshop; garment workers; Central America; cross-border labor; maquiladora orkers of the world unite” remains a potent and powerful rallying “Wcry, especially when one considers the globalization of the apparel industry and the miserable wages and working conditions that the world’s garment workers currently face (Ross, 2004). Transnational (or cross- border) labor solidarity could potentially mitigate the possibility and reality of capital mobility and thereby restrain the seemingly intractable, never- ending race to the bottom, but this is no simple task. Marx predicted that capi- talism’s inequities (long hours, low wages, etc.) would gradually minimize racial, ethnic, gender, and regional differences among workers, sparking the initial development of nationally based and subsequently internationally based labor unions (Howard, 1995). The rich, although highly contentious, history of labor internationalism during the past 150 years supports this view (Waterman, 2001). Cross-border labor solidarity has taken place. Workers have crossed borders for decades and many have benefited from these WORK AND OCCUPATIONS, Vol. 32 No. 4, November 2005 464-485 DOI: 10.1177/0730888405278990 © 2005 Sage Publications 464 Armbruster-Sandoval / ANTI-SWEATSHOP MOVEMENT & SOCIAL JUSTICE 465 various efforts, but these gains have not often been broadened or sustained over time. The contemporary anti-sweatshop movement confronts a similar dilemma today. Garment workers and social justice activists from the Ameri- cas (North, Central, and South), Asia, Africa, and Europe have successfully challenged some transnational corporations for their sweatshop labor prac- tices during the past decade (1995 to 2005), but these victories have usually been short-lived. The literature documenting these antisweatshop campaigns is extensive.1 Despite these numerous studies, very few researchers—until quite re- cently (see Armbruster-Sandoval, 2003, 2005)—have theoretically exam- ined why most antisweatshop (or cross-border labor solidarity) campaigns typically succeed in the short run but fail over the long run. Moreover, the links between the historical and contemporary antisweatshop movements have rarely been explored.2 What lessons can garment workers, activists, and academics learn from the past for today’s struggle against sweatshop labor? The relationship between this movement and the larger global justice move- ment also warrants greater discussion. This article addresses these questions through a comparative analysis of four antisweatshop campaigns. These cases primarily involved Central Ameri- can and U.S. garment workers, nongovernment organizations (NGOs), and labor unions. They targeted high-profile, brand-name companies—Phillips Van-Heusen (PVH), the Gap, J.C. Penney, Wal-Mart, Target, and Kohl’s. Within each campaign, workers and activists obtained some important con- cessions (better wages or working conditions or both), but the improvements they made were eventually limited or completely overturned. The following sections explore these campaigns’ dynamics, highlighting what factors gen- erated these various outcomes. Before doing this and commenting on these four case studies’ larger theoretical and political implications, I start with a brief analysis of the literature on globalization and transnational social movements. GLOBALIZATION AND TRANSNATIONAL SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: THE BOOMERANG EFFECT Andrew Herod (2001), following Gibson-Graham’s (1996) incisive analysis, suggests that most geographers and social scientists, from a wide variety of ideological perspectives (conservative, liberal, radical, etc.), con- tend that globalization is an inexorable process that workers cannot effec- 466 WORK AND OCCUPATIONS / November 2005 tively challenge. Transnational corporations (TNCs), the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organization, and other mul- tilateral bodies are often portrayed as near-invincible institutions that have single-handedly reorganized the global economy. Because they have tremen- dous power and resources, workers and social justice activists have very lit- tle, if any, agency. Globalization and the geographical dispersion of produc- tion (especially in the highly mobile garment industry, where factories can be moved rather quickly) have ostensibly transformed them into hapless, pow- erless victims. This pessimistic viewpoint is widely held today. TNCs such as Nike, the Gap, and PVH hold the upper hand because they can simply cut and run when they are confronted with labor-organizing campaigns in a developed or developing country. Because this particular outcome has occurred numerous times, it cannot be easily dismissed as one possible scenario. However, fram- ing it as a near-automatic certainty overlooks the fact that there are, to borrow two book titles from David Harvey (1982, 2000), “limits to capital,” and “spaces of hope” that still exist within the global economy. Where are those spaces of hope? How can garment workers and social justice activists confront sweatshop labor practices? Margaret Keck and Kathryn Sikkink (1998, pp. 12-13) maintain that “domestic nonstate actors” (e.g., workers, unions, and NGOs) can effectively attack intransigent tar- gets (e.g. states, institutions, TNCs) and generate social change through a feedback-oriented mechanism they call the “boomerang effect.” The boomerang effect takes place when powerful states restrict domes- tic nonstate actors from redressing their grievances. States with relatively closed political opportunity structures can undermine, for instance, a labor- organizing campaign through bureaucratic delays, arrests, intimidation, and violence (McAdam, McCarthy, & Zald, 1996). Given these unfavorable con- ditions, domestic nonstate actors can establish ties with NGOs beyond their borders, forming a “transnational advocacy network” (TAN; Keck & Sikkink, 1998, pp. 8-10) of allies, whose members can, in turn, lean on their states to put indirect or direct pressure on the original recalcitrant state (see Figure 1). Keck and Sikkink (1998) suggest that the purpose of the TAN is to per- suade the state or some other powerful target to change or enforce its laws or policies or introduce new reforms. TANs can achieve these goals by engag- ing in four types of politics: information, symbolic, leverage, and account- ability. Information politics involves publicizing and disseminating facts (concerning sweatshop conditions, human rights abuses, etc). Symbolic Armbruster-Sandoval / ANTI-SWEATSHOP MOVEMENT & SOCIAL JUSTICE 467 Intergovernmental Organization Boomerang Effect State A State B (Blocked Access) Boomerang Effect NGO NGO NGO NGO Information Transnational Advocacy Network Figure 1: The Boomerang Effect NOTE: NGO = Nongovernment organizations. SOURCE: Copyright (© 2005) from Globalization and cross-border labor solidarity in the Americas: The anti-sweatshop movement and the struggle for social justice by R. Armbruster-Sandoval. Reproduced by permission of Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group, LLC. politics revolve around framing or explaining complex issues or events through signs—alternative fashion shows, mock awards, pictures, posters, or guerrilla theater (McAdam et al., 1996). Leverage politics seek to undermine powerful targets through moral or material means. Accountability politics typically highlight the contradiction or legitimacy gap between the target’s words and deeds through, for example, a careful analysis of its mission state- ment or code of conduct. These strategies are not mutually exclusive; they are often used simultaneously. Given the model’s assumptions, how well does it correspond with the four antisweatshop campaigns I have examined? Despite Keck and Sikkink’s (1998) rather perplexing comments about the transitory nature of labor- oriented TANs,3 I contend that their conceptual model is, for the most part, useful. They do place too much emphasis on the role of the TAN, however, making it virtually the proverbial white knight in shining armor. This per- spective unconsciously marginalizes (mostly “women of color”) garment workers from narratives of resistance while privileging White, First-World, middle-class activists and consumers (Brooks, 2002). The