Classic Medallics Inc./Singer Co. response to concerns about working conditions raised by National Labor Committee
The Business & Human Rights Resource Centre invited Singer Co. to respond to a November 2007report by the National Labor Committee, which raised concerns about the working conditions for production in China of crucifixes sold in the USA by Singer. The report was also picked up by international media.
- “Today Workers Bear the Cross” - National Labor Committee, Nov 2007:
- “Group: Churches Sell Sweatshop Crosses” - AP, 21 Nov 2007:
Singer provided to the Resource Centre the following series of statements that it issued in response to the report (most recent first below), as well as a response that Full Start provided to Singer, available at
Allegations of using a sweat shop to produce crucifixes in JunxingyeFactory
19 Dec 2007
Over the last 5 weeks we have had numerous conversations with the ownerof the Chinese factory. The following is a progress report as to theconditions in the factory, and the actions taken by the owner of thefactory.
1) The owner stands by his original claim that there is no person underthe age of 18 working in his factory.
2) The owner has established a new policy that the maximum number ofhours that a worker can work per week is 48 hours. This includes a 40-hour regular work week, and a maximum number of hours of overtime of 8hours. He concedes that his factory in the past was exceeding thislimit. In addition the maximum number of days that a worker can work perweek will be 6 days with Sunday's off.
3) He states that he is now in compliance with all Chinese labor laws inregards to minimum wages, and overtime.
4) He has started an upgrade of the living quarters of his employees,which include painting, adding tables, cabinets and chairs, improvedwaste removal procedures, and improving the conditions in the cafeteria.
5) We have been given an invitation to come and visit the factory earlynext year, which we will take advantage of. The same invitation hasbeen extended to the National Labor Committee.
We will continue to monitor the progress being made at the factory.
Opening up a constructive non-inflammatory dialog with Mr.Kernaghan
22 Nov 2007
1) We have confirmed that the factory that Mr. Kernaghan accuses ofabuse is owned by Full Start.
2) We have started a dialog with the owner of the factory. At this pointwe have had two telephone conversations in which we discussed theconditions in the factory, and Chinese labor law. For Mr. Kernaghan tocompare him with Jack the Ripper is counter productive, and has to stop.The owner is well aware of Chinese labor law, and insists that his wagespaid are within the law. In addition he has stated that no one under 18is employed in the factory. However, he does admit that on occasion hehas workers exceeding the maximum allowed hours per week. As I havestated before, this has to be addressed by the owner, and corrected.
3) Since there have been no previous accusations against this factory,and we have been reassured in the past that their factory operates within Chinese labor law it is completely unfair to call our efforts tomonitor ridiculous. However since the charge has been made labeling thisfactory a sweatshop we will dramatically increase our monitoringefforts. Like Mr. Kernaghan, I am not interested in seeing Chineseworkers lose their jobs. Our company has a strong history of trying toprotect our own factory workers jobs, and working conditions. For thatreason alone I am asking him to tone down his language if he expects theChinese to respond in a positive manner.
4) I have requested that the factory put in writing the actual regularhours worked, overtime hours worked per week, and the hourly rate.
5) I am more then willing to try to visit the factory in question. Inorder for this to occur, the conversation must be toned down.
6) The National Labor committee has made the claim that we stripped offthe "Made in China" label. This is completely false. We did not removethe labels. In checking our inventory we have found a small quantity ofcrucifixes missing the country of origin. I can only assume that thecrucifixes that Mr. Kernaghan has referred to in his news conference aresome of these items. I would be happy to confirm that with him. Thesebarcode labels are placed on the product by the factory in China not inour factory. We have identified the shipment that is missing the Countryof Origin and have begun properly labeling the items. We have beenimporting products from several countries for over 50 years, and we arewell aware of U.S. Custom laws. We believe our record of compliance withU.S. Custom regulations is excellent. We have never hidden the fact thatthese items were made in China, or claimed they were produced in anothercountry.
If Mr. Kernaghan, and the National Labor Committee want to achievepositive results, I am willing to work with them. It is imperative thatno further insults be launched at the Chinese people. This is not theway to improve conditions in Chinese factories. The Chinese are a veryproud people, and will react very negatively to inflammatory remarks. Iam more than willing to meet with Mr. Kernaghan to discuss the nextstep. In fact he is welcome to visit our factory as long as it is not astaged media event.
Company response to sweatshop allegation
21 Nov 2007
Brief biography: We are a third generation family business started byour grandfather in 1940. When the war ended he was joined in thebusiness by his two sons. Both my partner and I joined the business inthe early seventies. We continue to this day selling religious giftstores, trophy shops, sporting goods, advertising specialtydistributors, jewelry stores, and sign and print shops.
Answer to charges: We are eager to defend ourselves, and our company. Wewould never knowingly allow any of our products to be made in asweatshop. We have started an investigation by contacting our Supplier,and they strongly deny that they are a sweatshop. The owner of thefactory has stated that they do not employee anyone under the age of 18,they abide by Chinese labor rates, and no employee is forced to work inthe factory against their will. In questioning the factory in regards tothe total hours worked in a week they admitted that they at times exceedthe legal limit, but the number is not 100 hours a week. We informedthem they have to address this issue, and make sure they are incompliance with the Chinese labor law. There are other issues that theNational Labor committee raises that are not true. The most important isthe claim that these crucifixes were smuggled into the country, this isnot true. They went through customs with all the appropriate fees paid.The word smuggled is clearly inflammatory and not justified. In additionthere comment about 1100% mark ups is absurd. There is nobody in thesupply chain that even comes close to that figure.
We believe the pictures of the factory work area do represent theworking area in a typical Chinese factory. However,the shots of theliving area are in question. We believe the rooms are larger then shown,but this can not be verified at this time.
We strongly believe that the Chinese government is making a realconcerted effort to shut down sweatshops, and they continue to performmore on site inspections. In fact I would expect the government to visitthe factory that is in question.
If we are proven to be wrong about the factory we will either withdrawthe product from the factory and the market, or try to begin workingwith the factory to improve the conditions, so that the factory meets orexceeds Chinese labor laws.
The only products that belong to us that have been depicted in thearticle are 6 wall crosses and wall crucifixes. The other products showndo not belong to us.
I can only hope that this organization’s only goal is to truly improveworking conditions of all workers in the world, including the UnitedStates. You would think that they would have contacted us before theirnews conference to give us a chance to answer the charges.