Nike: Evil Empire
by Matt Kleinhans
November 2002
Everyone loves his or her new set of Nike apparel. In fact, Nike can be found on the bodies of many athletic team members. Why would such a prosperous and well-known company rely on the exploitation of child slave labor? It all started when CEO Philip Knight came up with a "brilliant idea": put shoe factories in Asia, paying the workers pennies on the dollar, and raking in immense profits. Nike can easily afford to pay workers a fair amount. One can see that this is the antithesis of Nike's philosophy: doing what's fair. Workers in Nike sweatshops are denied human rights, pressured into working long and hard hours, and worst of all can't provide for themselves or their families. It's ironic how an American company, which enjoys the rights given to it by the American government, takes away human rights in other countries.
Nike should open its factories to inspection by the local labor rights offices. Until it wants to, Nike will probably continue the denial of human rights. Workers in one factory in Formosa, El Salvador are abused frequently and take it because they need the money. They take physical and verbal abuse such as yelling, cursing, and even hitting and shoving. Bathroom visits are monitored and limited. The workers have never even heard of the Nike Code of Conduct. Workers could be fired on the spot if they were suspected to be involved with joining a union or a strike. Pregnancy tests are even given to new workers. If they are found to be positive, they are fired immediately. Nike should educate its workers so they know their legal rights. Nike should not just move its sweatshops out of complaining countries, as this could hurt the country's economy.
Long and hard hours are notorious of the Nike sweatshops. Nike workers are forced to work overtime without pay. Sick days and visits to the clinic are denied or deducted from the worker's wages. Workers in the PT Hardaya Aneka factory went on strike, demanding that they be paid the new minimum wage of Indonesia ($2.26 - $2.46). However, the Indonesian government allows garment and shoe manufacturers with large work forces to ask for permission to delay paying the new minimum wage if a public audit proves they are incapable of doing so. Reluctantly, Nike accepted to pay but stated that it would not increase its wages due to more increased minimum wages in Indonesia. Nike has made fantastic profits including a record $795 million in 1997 and big salaries for Nike executives like Chief Executive Officer Phil Knight. "Labor and materials now cost less than 3 percent of the purchase price of many Nike shoes, but the price of Air Jordan's certainly hasn't dropped". While all of this profit is being made, people are working in sweatshops for 3 extra hours per day - overtime for no pay. That means 24 extra overtime hours a week, without pay, keeping them from their families even more.
People who work in these factories may have no other way to provide for their families. As the population in Asia increases, more and more jobs are needed. Nike provides jobs for these people who might have no other choice. Since many poor countries compete for international investment by keeping the minimum wage low, the minimum wage is often below a subsistence income. Nike claims to be a member of the Fair Labor Association (FLA), which was set up in 1998 with the help of the White House, the US Department of Labor, and the apparel industry. The FLA has a code of conduct that says companies will pay the minimum wage or prevailing industry wage of the country in which they are operating, but makes no provision that companies should pay a wage that workers can live on (Beder). Student activists became concerned about this and formed the Workers' Rights Consortium (WRC) that promotes a "living wage", or the wage one would need to survive. As more universities join this, the FLA's credibility is damaged, ultimately hurting Nike. Nike has employed reputation management rather than instigated real reforms that addressed the underlying issues.
Stopping Nike will not be easy. Boycotting Nike merchandise just furthers the problem as Nike seeks to make large profits at the expense of the worker as it is. If Nike loses money, it may in turn put the expense on the worker's shoulders by reducing wages. Sending letters to Nike seems futile because the company claims to be improving factory conditions and increasing wages when in reality they are just sweeping the problem under the carpet and painting a positive picture of themselves for the public. Anyone can now see how poorly the sweatshop workers are treated. These people are denied basic human rights, they are forced to work long, hard hours with little pay, and they cannot even provide for their families (or even themselves). What kind of company would do this to a fellow human being who just wants to live his/her own life? One must remember that reputation is important to sales. Is Nike a company with a reputation that a person would be proud to buy from?
Sources Used:
http://www.irregulartimes.com/nike.html
http://www.nlcnet.org/nike/formosa.htm - doit
http://www.rwor.org/a/v19/905-09/908/nike1.htm
http://www.mndaily.com/daily/2000/04/03/editorial_opinions/o0403/
Beder, Sharon. "Nike Continues to Greenwash Sweatshop Labor". The Ecologist. April 2002.
Mariko Curran