Workers obviously need to know what their rights are. If they do not, self-help mechanisms like grievance procedures are meaningless, and external monitoring that relies on workers to help identify rights violations is crippled. Nor are workers likely to know their rights without help. Almost by definition, the rights that codes of conduct seek to enforce are different from workers' previous expectations. Measuring workers' knowledge of their rights can therefore give an important preliminary signal for whether those rights are being respected, with worker ignorance being a key danger sign.

Measurability issues 

Measurement of steps taken to educate workers is much easier than measurement of whether, what, and how much workers learn as a result. 

Current strengths

Current measurement practice focuses much more on the process of education that is offered to workers than on what they actually learn. Units of measurement include the timing ^[1] and frequency ^[2] of worker instruction about rights, the form ^[3] and content ^[4] of written materials that are provided, including summaries ^[5] and translation, ^[6] and training for both workers and managers. ^[7]  

The act of monitoring itself can be a vehicle for educating workers, as monitors interact with their interviewees and raise issues related to rights (see Monitoring).Some measurement units therefore look at whether workers have been told how to contact monitors, ^[8] and that they have the right to do so without penalty. ^[9] By far the most careful model for assessing the relationship of monitoring and worker education is presented by the settlement of the Saipan litigation. ^[10]  

Current weaknesses 

Whether workers actually know and understand their rights, as a result of education efforts or otherwise, receives almost no attention in current practice.The few, token units of measurement for actual worker knowledge address this question only in vague and evasive terms. ^[11]  

There is also a striking disparity in the amount of measurement attention given to workers' education about what their rights are, depending on the particular subject area.In the area of Health and Safety, for example, measurement units for education and training are commonplace, and they cover many different details of what workers are taught and by whom. ^[12] In areas like Non-Discrimination and Abuse and Harassment the attention to education efforts is less extensive but still substantial. But in the area of Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining, measurement attention to the education of workers about their rights is almost non-existent. ^[13] This disparity in measurement attention may or may not reflect a disparity in the amount of actual education workers receive about their different rights, although it certainly suggests that failings in worker education will stand out much more clearlyin other areas than in freedom of association when current measurement units are used, and that even complete failures to educate workers about freedom of association could easily go unnoticed.The disparity in measurement units may also reflect a particularly strong reluctance on the part of management to have workers educated about freedom of association rights and implementation issues 

Best current practices (selected) 

• Checking the timing of worker education efforts to be sure they reach new workers, ^[14] as well as the greatest number of workers (i.e., at high season). ^[15]
  
  
• Focusing on the terminology of rights, ^[16] and on the existence of special materials to increase worker understanding of what may be unfamiliar terms or concepts ^[17] to workers.
  
  
•   Checking that education about the role of the monitor is an integral part of worker education about rights (see Strengths above).

Possible improvements suggested by analysis

1.      In interviews of managers, include specific quiz questions in order to gauge the manager's level of understanding of procedures for responding to grievances or other procedures initiated by workers to assert their rights. Such tests could include hypothetical situations with hypothetical details.

2.      Show results of such quizzes to workers (omitting identity of interview subjects) and request input on whether managers' answers reflect actual practice.

3.      In interviews of workers, include specific quiz questions in order to gauge the worker's level of understanding of her own rights, and of procedures for enforcing her own rights.

4.      Show results of such quizzes to managers (omitting identity of interview subjects) and request explanation if results show less-than-firm understanding by workers.

5.      In worker interviews and from third-party sources, seek specific examples of instances where a worker attempted to assert rights, and evaluate the degree of knowledge shown by both the worker(s) and manager(s) involved.