Friday, October 31, 1997
Bruin unfairly reported on sweatshop charges
NIKE: Editorial was based on rumors
rather than the facts
By Nicole Luque
Although I applaud The Bruin’s editorial board and USAC for
their concern of human rights, I completely disagree with the
manner in which they expressed these concerns and their blatant
disregard for facts in their report on Nike’s labor relations. This
next part may shock some of you, but here it is: Nike does not
manufacture shoes in sweatshops. How can this be? Well, please take
a few minutes to read on and I will tell you what I know.
Nike knew that its manner of production in Asia was not what it
should be, and decided to voluntarily enlist services of neutral
outside agencies to monitor their labor practices. Also, earlier
this year Andrew Young of Goodworks International was sought out by
Nike to do a completely unbiased assessment of its labor practices.
A former mayor of Atlanta and co-chair of the Atlanta Olympic
Committee concerned with labor unions and workers’ rights, I
believe that Young was qualified to make the assessment.
Before Young went to Asia, he had Nike promise him access to all
factories, to talk to any employee without factory or Nike
employees present, to review confidential audits and documents and
that no matter what the outcome of his assessment was, it would be
made public.
Earlier this summer, Andrew Young released his findings at a
press conference, but unfortunately not many people were aware of
the results. One of the first things he said was, "It is my sincere
belief that Nike is doing a good job in the application of its Code
of Conduct. But Nike can and should do better." There it is, plain
and simple, and if you look at http://www.info.nike.com, this is
one of the first things you will see. Nike is addressing and trying
to remedy the problem, rather than shying away from the
situation.
As an intern at Nike, I also had the opportunity to hear Dr.
Tien Nguyen, a former nuclear engineer who works in Nike’s
labor-relations department, speak of Nike’s manufacturing in Asia.
Some of you may recognize him as the Nike spokesman depicted in the
"Doonesbury" comic strip earlier this year. Nguyen has visited the
factories in Asia and is sincerely interested in the labor
practices in Asia and especially in Vietnam.
Nguyen stressed that one of the problems of this whole situation
is that the incidents, which had happened a long time ago, were
blown out of proportion by the media. Many of the incidents have
been long resolved, and even though over in Asia they have moved
on, people over here are still mulling over it. Some instances that
you may have heard of are workers being forced to work overtime and
run laps around the factory or being hit for not meeting production
quotas. However, it must be emphasized that these are all isolated
incidences and not policy within the factories. Since then Nike has
fired those managers and implemented measures and policies to
prevent any future incidences.
The factories themselves are not owned by Nike, but contracted
to manufacture the shoes for Nike. According to Nguyen, it is
common to find different shoe brands manufactured in the same
factory, such as Nike and Reebok, which he saw in one case. He also
noted that many of the problems stemmed from the fact that the
managers in the factories do not speak the same language as the
workers. For example, a factory in Vietnam has Taiwanese managers,
which makes communication difficult. Steps taken to improve this
situation include encouraging the managers to learn the native
language, providing language education for the managers and hiring
more national managers.
Many of the workers that Nguyen talked to said that they "felt
good about working for Nike," and "didn’t want to go to another
factory." The workers earn twice as much in the factory than they
would farming, and many workers support their families through
their wages in the factories.
The Bruin’s article states that workers only make $1.60 a day,
but how can that be compared to wages in the United States? That is
like comparing apples and oranges. People must realize that the
cost of living in Asia is not even close to the cost here. The
Bruin article also states that $1.60 is "not nearly enough to
compensate for their time and labor," but how can this be if they
are the ones supporting not only themselves but the rest of their
family? I believe that the root of these problems do not lie within
Nike but in the Asian countries themselves.
You may have heard that the factories are sweatshops with poor
lighting, crowding and underage workers. After seeing pictures of
and reading reports of the factories, they can hardly be what I
would call a sweatshop. In Andrew Young’s unannounced visits to
various factories, he found adequate lighting and working
conditions, and in many factories there were cafeterias,
dormitories and exercise areas provided for the workers. There have
been instances of underage workers, but it occurred because they
showed false identification to obtain their jobs.
One of the points made by the USAC resolution is that we as
students have been "manipulated into spending in excess of $100 for
a pair of shoes made under sweatshop labor conditions." Yes, it is
true that many Nike shoes cost more than $100, which may seem
ridiculous when the costs of producing those shoes are much less.
But understand that your money not only pays for the materials and
labor of the shoes, but the research and development, advertising,
and endorsements for those shoes. You are not only buying a pair of
shoes, you are buying a brand name. It is the same thing as someone
paying $80 for an Armani T-shirt which looks the same as that $15
one at the Gap.
Getting back to my main point, contrary to what The Bruin and
USAC may think, Nike is doing something about this concern. Not
only did Nike admit that there is some sort of an issue, but they
also took a chance by having a third party audit their operations
trying to do something about it. Only a few weeks ago the Los
Angeles Times reported that Nike stopped manufacturing in four
factories in Indonesia that did not comply with their Code of
Conduct. As Nike says, "there is no finish line," and they are
continuing to better the situation.
I implore each of you to educate yourselves on the situation and
learn the facts before believing everything that the media
(including The Bruin) say. A good source is the Web site
http://www.digitalrelease.com/cgi-shl/entry.pl?|@goodworks|ib,
which contains the complete report conducted by Andrew Young.
I support the selling of Nike products in the UCLA Store as Nike
complies with their no-sweatshop policy. And I ask The Bruin’s
editorial board and USAC this: Don’t condemn one company for the
problems of an entire industry, and if you decide to do so, please
get all of the facts first.