Your clothes might look clean, but what you might not realise is that many of items we wear are produced under conditions that are far from just. Make Trade Fair Campaign Coordinator Jeff Atkinson explains.

If you open your clothes closet and look at the labels on your dresses, jackets, shirts or pants, you will find that much of what you wear was made in a developing country. In fact about half the garments now sold in Australia are manufactured in low-wage countries such as China, Fiji, India and Malaysia and often under conditions that are far from just. The other half are probably produced in Australia – and a 'Made in Australia' label means that there is an 80 per cent likelihood that the garment is made by a homeworker. These workers are mainly women who make clothes at home for as little as $2 to $3 an hour, working up to 18 hours a day, six or seven days a week. It is estimated that there are more than 300,000 home-workers in Australia.

Most of the workers who produce our garments in developing countries are women, who work under employment conditions that typically involve long hours of paid and unpaid overtime, inadequate wages, and in many cases unreasonable production targets or piecerates. These women are often subject to discrimination – and in some cases to intimidation, physical or verbal abuse and sexual harassment.

While a job in a garment factory can provide women with an income far better than that they could obtain if they stayed in rural village, often it is at a high expense. Many are faced with over work, poor health, and strained family relations – some also leave their families and children behind to work in the cities.

Vijitha is a 37-year-old woman from a village in the south of Sri Lanka who now works in a garment factory in Colombo. Married with three children, her husband also works in another factory in the same area. "Two of my children are staying with me and the other one stays with my parents back in the village. It is difficult for us to keep all three children with us because of the expenses," says Vijitha. "It is hard to save money from the wages I get. I have to spend the money on education for the children. So every month I pawn some of our possessions for a loan."

All too often, the governments of the countries concerned are unable or unwilling to protect the rights of their citizens, while the ability of the workers to protect themselves is thwarted by the denial of their basic right to join a trade union and bargain collectively with their employer. Garment production often takes place in 'Export Processing Zones', where trade unions are effectively banned by the government concerned.

The manufacturing companies which employ women workers are often small locally owned firms, who fulfil production orders from agents and wholesalers. These in turn are filling orders from brand name companies (e.g. Nike, Fila, Puma, Calvin Klein) or clothing retailers. It is these brand name companies and retailers that hold the commercial power, and who are able to set the price, quality and delivery time for the garments that are to be manufactured. Some retailers and brand name companies, in response to public pressure over 'sweatshop' conditions in developing countries, have established codes of conduct for the suppliers who manufacture their clothes. But often it is the purchasing practices of the retailers themselves that is contributing to the problem – the low price per item and tight delivery times that they demand, that create the pressure for low wages and temporary employment, and make the long hours of overtime inevitable.

This March, Oxfam Community Aid Abroad, together with our Oxfam International affiliates and the Trade Union movement is launching a campaign aimed at changing this. Part of the 'Make Trade Fair' campaign, it will focus on the companies that trade in garments, the brand name and retailing companies, asking them to institute effecting codes of practice and to reform their purchasing practices.

The 'Play Fair at the Olympics' campaign will focus on sportswear, and use public interest in the forthcoming Olympic Games in Athens to highlight the contrast between the ideals that the Olympic movement stands for, of fairness, equality and friendship, and the situation of the women who make the sportswear and uniforms that the Olympic athletes wear.

The campaign will ask the International and Australian Olympic Committees to attach conditions to their licensing and sponsorship agreements, specifying that any garment bearing the Olympic logo must be made under proper conditions.

As this campaign is about workers' rights as well as making trade fair, it is appropriate that it should be run in conjunction with the international trade union movement in Australia. This means that we will be working with the Australian Council of Trade Unions, and the FairWear Campaign on home-workers. The campaign launch coincides with the release of a joint report on the sportswear industry.

To find out more about the 'Play Fair at the Olympics' campaign visit www.oxfam.org.au/labour. See also:

• The Australian FairWear Campaign at www.fairwear.org.au
• The Australian Council of Trade Unions at www.actu.asn.au

"In the countryside we have more freedom, but no money. In the factory we have no freedom, but we have money to support our families."

These are the words of Sovana, a 21-year-old woman working in Cambodia's rapidly growing garment industry. These words capture the ambivalence that many women feel about working in the industry. On the one hand, most acknowledge the benefits of increased income. On the other, there is a widespread feeling that working in garment factories involves a loss of freedom and, in some cases, dignity.

One in five Cambodian women aged between 18 and 25 now work in a garment factory. The vast majority have migrated to the capital Phnom Penh from desperately poor rural areas. Wages provide the magnet. In her rural village, Sovana earned 50 cents a day selling vegetables in her local village. In Phnom Penh she earns $55 a month. This may sound like an improvement, but the fact is that many women are moving from a situation of poverty in the rural village to an alternative where they are grossly underpaid, work very long hours, and are often unable to see their families.

Each month, Sovana sends between $20 and $30 back to her family. It is used to pay for the education of her brothers and to support the household budget. After paying rent (for one room, shared with three other women), Sovana is left with not much more than 50 cents a day. Sovana's case is not untypical. Health emergencies, money for education, and support for the family place extreme demands on limited incomes.